BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

Committee of Selection

Ordered,
	That Anne Milton be discharged from the Committee and John Penrose be added. —(Greg Hands.)

Hallett Review

Resolved,
	That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, That she will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House a Return of the Report of the Hallett Review: An Independent Review into the On the Runs administrative scheme, dated 17 July 2014. —(Greg Hands.)

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Rural Mobile Coverage

Chi Onwurah: What recent assessment she has made of the extent of rural mobile coverage.

Elizabeth Truss: I start by paying tribute to my predecessor, the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson), who did so much to champion British food and farming, improve the environment and promote rural growth.
	Mobile coverage is vital for rural businesses and households, and 99% of premises already receive 2G coverage. Our 3G mobile data coverage is better than that of many other European countries. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and I will be working hard to eradicate not-spots.

Chi Onwurah: I welcome the right hon. Lady to her new position. I hope she will ensure that the excellent work she was doing to encourage girls and boys into science, technology, engineering and maths subjects will be continued by the new Minister.
	The Prime Minister seems recently to have discovered that it can be quite difficult to get decent mobile coverage in Devon—well, bully for him. Is it not the case, however, that this Government’s abandonment of our universal coverage principle, as well as the bungling of the broadband roll-out, represents a betrayal of the rural economy of absolutely epic proportions?

Elizabeth Truss: I thank the hon. Lady for her congratulations. I am still passionate about science and maths, and getting more women into those areas and indeed into agriculture. Getting more high-skilled people to look at agriculture as a career option would provide a fantastic opportunity. We are investing £150 million in the mobile infrastructure project to help address those areas of low mobile coverage at the moment.

Anne McIntosh: I welcome the Secretary of State to her position and very much look forward to her appearing before the Select Committee. From 1 January, all farm payments will have to be digital by default. In Thirsk and Malton, 22% will have no fast-speed coverage, yet that just happens to be where all the farmers are. Will she hold out a hand of friendship to those farmers to ensure that they can access broadband for their farm payments?

Elizabeth Truss: I will be delighted to work with the hon. Lady and the Select Committee; I am very much looking forward to that. We know that 70% of farmers are already processing their payments online. She is absolutely right that some do not have access to online payments at the moment, which is why the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), who has responsibility for farming, is making centres available that will be able to advise those farmers and help them get online.

Margaret Ritchie: I, too, welcome the hon. Lady to her new position and look forward to her appearance before the Select Committee. We know from the report on rural broadband that we carried out last year that the lack of adequate broadband has been identified repeatedly as one of the key barriers to growth in rural economies. In view of the fact that so much money was allocated to England and to the devolved Administrations, what assessment has been carried out of its effectiveness, given that for topographical reasons many rural areas have not yet received their access?

Elizabeth Truss: I agree with the hon. Lady about the vital importance of broadband for rural businesses in this country and for exports, which I am passionate about promoting. We know that the extent of broadband coverage has increased significantly from 45% of premises in 2010 to 75% now. I agree that we need to do more, which is why I am working on that along with my right hon. Friend the Culture Secretary.

Alan Reid: I congratulate the Secretary of State on her promotion to the Cabinet. I was pleased when the Government gave £150 million to the mobile infrastructure project, but have been disappointed at the lack of progress in my own constituency so far. Will she please make it one of her early tasks to look at that project and do whatever she can to speed up progress on it, which is vital?

Elizabeth Truss: I thank the hon. Gentleman. Promoting rural growth certainly will be one of my main priorities, and I believe mobile coverage and broadband coverage are both vital to that objective.

Kosher and Halal Meat

Philip Davies: If she will ensure that all halal and kosher meat is labelled at point of sale.

George Eustice: We believe that, in the first instance, it is for food retailers and food outlets to provide their customers with reliable information. I know that my hon. Friend is a long-standing campaigner on this issue, but, as I have explained to him before, the introduction of a compulsory labelling scheme for halal and kosher meat would present challenges, because there is no single unified definition. Nevertheless, the European Commission is currently conducting a review, and we will consider its report when it is published later in the year. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: I hope that the health of the Secretary of State is unimpaired.

Philip Davies: That is one way of ingratiating oneself with a new Secretary of State, Mr Speaker.
	Is the Minister aware that the Jewish and Muslim communities would be happy with full labelling of halal and kosher meat if all other meat products were also fully labelled to show the method of slaughter? I am sure that many consumers would want to see such labelling. Will the Minister proceed with the introduction of comprehensive labelling showing the method of slaughter, including halal and kosher, given that it clearly commands widespread support?

Mr Speaker: The Minister now has a chance to amend his career prospects.

George Eustice: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I shall do my best,
	As I have said, the European Commission is considering the issue. It is most likely to consider whether the animal was stunned or unstunned, because there is a clear definition in EU law. I am aware that groups in both halal and shechita say that they are open to exploring that further, and I look forward to having a dialogue with them and considering the European Commission report when it appears in December.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I am very pleased to see that the Minister survived the Prime Minister’s cull. The point that he has made is absolutely correct: it is a question of whether the animal has been stunned or not stunned. It is an animal welfare issue. Is it not the case that the majority of halal meat is from animals that were stunned? Surely that is the line that the Government should be pursuing in Brussels: “stunned” and “not stunned” labelling.

George Eustice: I entirely agree. There is a clear legal definition of “stunned” in EU law, namely that stunning renders the animal insensible to pain immediately. In the case of halal, some 90% of poultry and lambs have been stunned, and we should recognise that fact.

Bob Russell: Consumers are entitled to know exactly what is going on. Does the Minister agree that what we need in all our slaughterhouses is CCTV to give them that further assurance?

George Eustice: We considered the issue of CCTV in slaughterhouses during our consultation on slaughterhouse regulations last year, and concluded that it would not improve the situation much. Indeed, CCTV had already been installed in some of the slaughterhouses in which problems had been exposed by, for instance, Animal Aid, and it had not prevented abuses. However, we keep an open mind.

Philip Hollobone: My constituents believe that halal and kosher food should be labelled as such, but if there are already clear EU legal definitions of “stunned” and “not stunned”, what is there to prevent the UK Government from pressing ahead with labelling food in that way?

George Eustice: Having looked into the matter exhaustively, we concluded that if we introduced “method of slaughter” labelling, it would be best to introduce it at European level, because that would be safer and clearer legally. Spain considered introducing a national labelling scheme in 2012, but the Commission ruled against it.

Flood Defences (Gloucestershire)

Neil Carmichael: What assessment she has made of the effectiveness of flood defences in Gloucestershire.

Dan Rogerson: The Environment Agency maintains a strategic overview of flood and coastal erosion risk management. According to its assessment, publicly maintained flood defences in Gloucestershire protected more than 2,500 homes, as well as businesses and agricultural land, from flooding over the winter. A condition assessment following the events of the winter showed that less than 1% of the flood defences in Gloucestershire were damaged by the floods.

Neil Carmichael: What resources will be available in the future so that my constituents, especially those who live along the vale, can be reassured that they will not get wet when flooding really threatens them?

Dan Rogerson: I understand my hon. Friend’s concerns on behalf of his constituents. However, as part of the £270 million we have allocated to repair and maintain critical defences, £4 million has been allocated to Gloucestershire—£1 million to carry out maintenance and £3 million to repair flood risk management assets damaged in the storms, to ensure they are returned to and maintained at target condition for the winter.

Food and Drink Exports

Heather Wheeler: What the value to the UK economy of food and drink exports was in 2013.

Elizabeth Truss: Food and farming is the largest manufacturing sector in the UK. We have fantastic products, and sales are a real success story. Exports of food and drink have increased by £1.2 billion since
	2010, to a value of £18.9 billion. Since 2010, we have negotiated 564 market access agreements with 109 countries, including those on pork to China and beef to the USA.

Heather Wheeler: May I start by joining in the congratulations to my right hon. Friend on her new role and welcome her to the Department? Will she join me in celebrating the £210 million investment in the Nestlé factory in Hatton in my constituency, where the production of Dolce Gusto coffee will be centred? Will she congratulate Fiona Kendrick, the chief executive officer of Nestlé, on record exports last year from this south Derbyshire factory?

Elizabeth Truss: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her promotion of food and farming in her constituency and the massive success in securing this investment. It is fantastic to know that coffee produced in Hatton will be enjoyed from Houston to Hannover as a result of this new investment, and I wish this every success.

Alan Whitehead: Is the Secretary of State concerned about the export of food and drink packaging used in this country? Is she looking at measures to introduce things such as packaging recovery note offsets to ensure that such packaging is recycled in the UK rather than exported?

Elizabeth Truss: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, and that is certainly something I will be looking at and discussing with my junior Ministers.

Roger Williams: In 2012 the Agri-food and Drink Export Forum said that it would report on the progress it was making. The organisation is doing good work, so will the Secretary of State tell us what progress has been made and when we will get the result in report form?

Elizabeth Truss: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I understand that the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth, who has responsibility for farming, has already had a meeting with the organisation. Like my predecessor, I am passionate about increasing our food exports, as that is very important, and I look forward to working on it.

Mark Lazarowicz: Leading voices in the food and drink sector in Scotland have recently made it clear that they see that it is in their interests, as exporters, that Scotland should remain in the United Kingdom and the UK should remain in the EU. The Secretary of State and I probably agree on the first point, but does she agree that it is in the interests of the food and drink sector in the UK that we should remain in the EU and not withdraw from it?

Elizabeth Truss: I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s point about the UK: we are better together and we speak better as a single voice. That is very important. What I would say about the EU is that I have every faith that the Prime Minister is going to secure a fantastic renegotiation so that we have the benefits of trade, but with a reduction in bureaucracy and red tape.

Andrew Jones: There are 400,000 people in the UK directly employed in the food and drink sector, which is the one I was working in before I came here. We still import a higher proportion of our food and drink than any other country in the G20, so may I urge the Secretary of State to continue all the focus on redressing that balance and on exports?

Elizabeth Truss: I completely agree with my hon. Friend about that, which is why we are focusing on opening up more markets to British food—the US market is being opened to beef, which is a fantastic opportunity. But we also need to be encouraging more of our young people to look at food, farming and agriculture as a career, because fantastic skilled jobs are available and we need to make the idea of working in food and farming much more mainstream.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I welcome the Secretary of State to her post and wish her well. She will know that food fraud and authenticity issues and crises, such as the horsemeat scandal, which was presided over by her predecessors, can quickly destroy the value of UK food exports and the confidence of UK consumers in our food industries. Why, then, has the final report of the Elliott review of the horsemeat scandal, promised in the spring, not been published? Will she undertake to publish it before we go into recess?

Elizabeth Truss: We have received the Elliott report and we are looking at it at the moment; it is something that I am absolutely working on. We have made a priority of biosecurity and of ensuring that our food is safe, and we are working hard on that area.

Plant and Tree Health

Marcus Jones: What steps she is taking to reduce the threat of disease to the UK's plants and trees.

Dan Rogerson: On 30 April, we published a plant biosecurity strategy, which addresses the recommendations of the Tree Health and Plant Expert Biosecurity Taskforce and sets out a new approach to plant and tree health. We have also produced a prioritised plant health risk register, the first of its kind globally; published a new tree health management plan; undertaken work on contingency planning; continued to commission high quality research; and recruited a senior chief plant health officer.

Marcus Jones: Given the importance of trees to our economy and environment, not least in my constituency of Nuneaton where we recently lost a number of trees to disease, what action are the Government taking when specific threats are identified?

Dan Rogerson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this. We have produced a prioritised plant health risk register to identify risk and to agree priorities for action. We have also produced new contingency plans for plant diseases and we will be testing them in an exercise later this year. The measures in the new tree health management plan set out clearly the approaches
	that we are taking, for example against chalara, phytophthora ramorum and oak processionary moth. As soon as we were aware of a threat to plane trees, we moved quickly to impose an import restriction on them.

Barry Sheerman: May I, through the junior Minister, congratulate the new Secretary of State? I have enjoyed sparring with her in education debates. Sometimes, I have agreed with her, but I have never tried to sit on her. May I send a message on trees and plants? I know that evidence-based policy is what she believes in, so when we are dealing with disease in trees and plants, let us use the evidence and the scientific advice. Can we also do that with badgers?

Dan Rogerson: The Department believes in heeding scientific advice and taking action on it, especially with regard to the issues that are under discussion. The newly appointed senior chief plant health officer, who offers us such advice, is doing incredibly valuable work.

Richard Benyon: When we see the diseases that are here and that are coming down the track, it is easy to get into a state of despair about how our countryside will look in 10 or 20 years’ time. Will the Minister assure us that we have learned all the lessons from past diseases; that the approach to phytophthora ramorum of destroying millions of larch trees has worked; and that the new chief plant health officer will be able to tackle many of these emerging problems?

Dan Rogerson: My hon. Friend and predecessor is absolutely right to focus on this. As I have said, we have made it a priority in the Department and we have learned the lessons. Any Minister or Department that sat back and claimed they had learned everything would not be telling the truth. We must continually learn from what is out there, and work with colleagues across the world to look for new threats. What we are doing with these contingency exercises is not just to plan for what happens but to walk through it and to ensure that we are aware of the new threats that could arrive in this country.

Julie Hilling: The recent threat of ash dieback and indeed the horsemeat scandal show that the Food and Environment Research Agency plays a vital role in detecting and responding to threats to our natural environment and the food chain. Does the Secretary of State intend to continue with the privatisation of the research agency?

Dan Rogerson: Because FERA has done such excellent work, we are keen to expand its remit so that it works with partners in the private sector to make sure that all that expertise is used to its full effect in this country and to advise other jurisdictions abroad.

Flooding

Bill Esterson: What steps the Government have taken to respond to recent flooding; and if she will make a statement.

Dan Rogerson: The Government committed around £560 million to support those affected by the recent flooding. This includes an extra £270 million, to which I have referred in a previous question, to repair and maintain critical flood defences. We are helping households and businesses through the repair and renew grant, council tax and rates relief. Farmers and fishermen are receiving funding for repairs through existing schemes. We are supporting businesses through a £10 million hardship fund.

Bill Esterson: In my constituency, surface water flooding is a big problem. Will the Minister tell us what he is doing to ensure that councils, the Environment Agency and the water companies work together to protect communities such as those in my constituency, especially as councils and the Environment Agency have faced very significant cuts in their budgets?

Dan Rogerson: I know the hon. Gentleman recently raised the flooding in Maghull with the Environment Agency. Watercourses and rivers are the responsibility of the agency, but surface flooding, as he said, is the responsibility of the lead local flood authority. I have been talking to the Local Government Association about chasing all councils to ensure that their plans are in place, so that we can be as reassured about surface flooding as we are about other forms of flooding and that all the procedures are in place.

Caroline Nokes: On one of the hottest days of the year, flooding may seem a dim and distant memory, but the effects are ongoing in Romsey. Not a single Government Minister has yet been to my constituency to see what needs to be done. Will my hon. Friend care to visit Romsey to see for himself the work that desperately needs to be undertaken to safeguard the town from future flooding events?

Dan Rogerson: Ministers have undertaken a great number of visits across the country and I would be happy to join my hon. Friend in a visit to her constituency. She is right to point out that we are experiencing some hot weather, which brings its own challenges, but we also have the threat of storms over the weekend, so we are keeping a close eye on what might result from them.

Hugh Bayley: I thank the previous Secretary of State who, in his last few days in office, confirmed to me in writing that the Department will in future publish statistics on flood protection expenditure as official statistics. Will the Minister inform the House when that change will take place and whether, crucially, it will be before the next election, so that we can have clear figures?

Dan Rogerson: I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) was able to write to the hon. Gentleman to reassure him about that approach and I am pleased with the welcome that the hon. Gentleman has given it. We have debated the matter on many occasions. We will now discuss how that change will come in and will introduce it as soon as we possibly can.

David Heath: Will the Minister arrange for the Secretary of State to maintain the closest possible contact with Somerset colleagues
	about Somerset? In particular, can we have an early meeting to discuss the two outstanding issues: the sluice on the Parrett and the Somerset rivers authority?

Dan Rogerson: As my hon. Friend knows, both the previous Secretary of State and I took a close interest in what happened in Somerset and made several visits there. I know that the new Secretary of State will also want to do that. I am sure that she will meet him soon, as will I.

Angela Smith: The Government’s response to the winter floods was slow and chaotic. Four months on, parliamentary answers from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs show that, of the £10 million pledged by the Prime Minister to Somerset farmers, only £403,000 has been paid out, and only £2,320 has been paid out to one fisherman in the south-west. The Prime Minister has gone from “money is no object” to “out of sight, out of mind.” What will the Department do to ensure that people get the help they were promised?

Dan Rogerson: I first want to correct the hon. Lady’s misapprehension. The money is not only for farmers in Somerset; it is for farmers across the country. We have received applications from the north and the east, and from other counties in the south-west. Those applications are being approved. Applicants will be paid once the work is carried out, so unless she wants to interfere in those farming businesses and tell them that they must carry the work out in the next week, we will have to wait until the work is actually carried out before we can pay them.

Shooting Sports

David Davies: What assessment she has made of the economic and environmental value of shooting sports.

George Eustice: The Government recognise the important contribution that shooting sports make to rural life, the economy and the environment. Although there are no Government assessments or official statistics, I am aware of a recent industry-funded study, which estimated that shooting is worth £2 billion to the UK economy and supports around 74,000 full-time jobs. It also assessed that the industry spends nearly £250 million a year on conservation.

David Davies: I congratulate the Secretary of State on her new appointment. I appreciate that she and the Minister are busy at the moment, but may I draw their attention to the report by the Sport and Recreation Alliance, which outlines the enormous economic benefits to rural areas that shooting brings? Will the Government continue to support this excellent form of recreation?

George Eustice: As I said, we recognise the value of shooting sports. Indeed, I referred precisely to the report that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. Shooting sports have an important role to play in rural communities and contribute to our economy.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for that response. Almost 1 million people participate in shooting sports in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The recreation is worth £2.5 billion through spending on goods and services. What discussions has the Minister had with the British Association for Shooting and Conservation and the Countryside Alliance about how to complement the good work that they do in the countryside?

George Eustice: Tomorrow, I will be attending the CLA game fair and, among others, I will meet the British Association of Shooting and Conservation and the Angling Trust. I look forward to discussing some of the issues on their agenda.

Bovine TB

Stephen Metcalfe: What recent reports she has received of progress made by other countries on bovine TB by tackling the disease in both cattle and wildlife.

George Eustice: The Government are aware of the success in countries such as Australia, New Zealand, the United States and the Republic of Ireland in tackling the scourge of TB. For instance, in New Zealand the number of infected herds has reduced from 1,700 20 years ago to just 66 in 2011-12, whereas in the Republic of Ireland the number of BTB reactors fell by 65% between 1999 and 2013. All those countries have pursued a strategy of tackling the reservoir of the disease in the wildlife population as well as other measures.

Stephen Metcalfe: As we seek to tackle this dreadful disease, is not one of the main lessons from the countries the Minister listed that while we must be prepared to use every tool available to us, we must also continue to develop new tools that might as yet seem out of reach?

George Eustice: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. The 25-year strategy to eradicate TB, which was published earlier this year, emphasised the fact that no one measure will tackle the problem. We need to pursue a range of measures, and that is why we are constantly improving our cattle movement controls and why we are spending £4 million a year investing in research into vaccines. It is also why we are continuing to develop effective cull methods.

Sheila Gilmore: The new Secretary of State is not answering this question personally, but perhaps she might do so later. The science clearly criticises the Government’s culling policy and this House has voted twice to end it. When will the Government change their mind? Do we not now have an opportunity, with the new broom, to do so?

George Eustice: I disagree with the hon. Lady. The evidence is very clear that no country has ever eradicated TB without also tackling the reservoir of the disease in the wildlife population. The randomised badger culling trial showed very clearly that in the four years after it concluded there was a significant reduction in the incidence of TB. I meet farmers, some of whom have closed herds but have repeated breakdowns and some of whom have
	been under restriction for 12 years, and although they are not bringing cattle on or off their farm, they have a reservoir of the disease in the wildlife population.

Robert Walter: The Minister will be aware of the disappointment and anger among the farming community in Dorset that the badger cull was not extended to Dorset this year despite the support of both the former Secretary of State and the Prime Minister. Will the Minister reassure the farming community in Dorset that DEFRA is on-stream to roll out effective control of bovine TB in Dorset next year?

George Eustice: As the former Secretary of State made clear in his statement, we listened to the recommendations of the independent expert panel. It made recommendations to improve the methodology of the cull and we are going to implement them this year. Our view is that we should improve and get the methodology of the cull right in the two existing pilots before we roll out new ones. Clearly, we will reassess the situation once this year’s culls have concluded.

Regulatory Burden (Farmers)

David Rutley: What progress she is making in reducing the burden of regulation on farmers.

Elizabeth Truss: We are making good progress in reducing regulation. We are putting in place earned recognition, which sees high-quality farmers benefiting from fewer inspections and less red tape, and now 14 out of 31 inspection regimes allow earned recognition. The Food Standards Agency has reduced dairy inspections by more than 8,000 a year and the Environment Agency’s pigs and poultry scheme is saving members £880 a year.

David Rutley: I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend on her well-deserved promotion. She will be a champion for rural communities in Norfolk, in Cheshire and across the country. It is vital that we go further to reduce the regulatory burden on farmers so that they can go on doing what they do best. With that in mind, will she tell the House what specific progress we are making under the red tape challenge?

Elizabeth Truss: I thank my hon. Friend for his congratulations and look forward to working with him on this issue, as I know that he is passionate about getting rid of the red tape that hampers farmers in doing what they do best. We intend to improve or remove 56% of the 516 regulations examined by the agriculture red tape challenge. As Secretary of State I want to continue to work to get rid of red tape and box-ticking, focusing instead on the outcomes we deliver in economic growth and environmental improvements. It is the outcomes that matter, not jumping through hoops.

Climate Change

William Bain: How much her Department has spent on adaptation to climate change; and if she will make a statement.

Dan Rogerson: DEFRA spent £8.3 million in 2013-14 under its core adapting to climate change programme. This included £4.1 million to the Met Office Hadley centre for the provision of world-leading climate science, and £1.6 million to the Environment Agency’s climate ready support service to help organisations across England adapt to a changing climate. Adaptation is mainstreamed across Government. Other Departments and other DEFRA programmes also fund activities that build resilience to climate change.

William Bain: But with the previous Secretary of State having raided the adaptation budget by 40% in the space of just one year, it is actions, not words, that count. Will the Minister take this opportunity to depart from the sceptical views of his former boss, recognise that climate change is a serious threat to our national security and reinstate flood prevention as a key departmental priority?

Dan Rogerson: The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that actions speak louder than words, which is why this Government are spending £3.2 billion on flood prevention and coastal erosion risk management, compared with £2.7 billion in the previous Parliament.

Sammy Wilson: Over the current spending period it is anticipated that £10.7 billion will be spent on subsidies to low-carbon electricity generation, while only £2.2 billion will be spent on flood defences. Does the Minister agree that adaptation measures designed to protect people’s homes would be a much more effective investment than spending money on unilateral mitigation measures which cost jobs, put up electricity prices and give no defence to people in the short run?

Dan Rogerson: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman that it is an either/or situation. Of course we need to invest in adaptation, which is what we are doing, as I set out in relation to flood prevention, but we also need to take action on mitigation, and I am proud of this Government’s progress on our commitments on carbon.

Topical Questions

Barbara Keeley: If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

Elizabeth Truss: I am delighted to have been appointed to this important role and to have such an early opportunity to answer questions. In the 48 hours since my appointment, I have not quite been able to speak to everyone or look at every issue, but I know from my work in Norfolk how vital this Department is. Food and farming and improving our natural environment are central not only to our rural communities, but to everyone in the country, and I want them to be a mainstream concern that everyone is part of. I believe that we can both grow our economy and improve our environment, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to do that.

Barbara Keeley: The M60, the M62 and the M602 run through my constituency, so it is definitely not very rural. We have extremely high levels of air pollution from road traffic. Indeed, the Highways Agency has had to shelve its plans to widen the M60 near my constituency because that would have brought too much road traffic and made our unacceptable air pollution worse. Now that the European Court of Justice has ruled that the Government are failing to meet their air pollution targets, does the Secretary of State know, after 48 hours, what plans Ministers have to tackle air pollution in areas such as mine, to prevent my constituents from suffering respiratory disease and early death?

Elizabeth Truss: Let us be clear. Air quality is very important, as is protecting and enhancing the environment. This is a huge challenge for lots of countries, and it is something I am working on with colleagues to address. We have invested more than £2 billion in measures since 2011 to reduce emissions from transport sources.

Charlotte Leslie: My constituents in Avonmouth suffered an unacceptable infestation of flies earlier this summer. The response from all parties involved, particularly the Environment Agency, was slow: it looked at the source of the problem, which was slow, not at the effect on my constituents, who suffered unacceptably. What will we do to ensure that there are plans in place for such emergencies and that agencies such as the Environment Agency respond quickly to residents’ concerns?

Elizabeth Truss: I understand that we await the final judgment from the Court of Appeal on this issue. I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss how we can ensure that the Environment Agency takes swift and effective action when such concerns are raised.

Maria Eagle: I congratulate the Secretary of State on her promotion and welcome her to her new job. However, I am appalled to hear the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), confirm that she is going to continue with the discredited, unscientific, inhumane and ineffective badger cull. Is she aware that Professor David Macdonald, the chief scientific adviser to Natural England, which will have to license the culls, has described them as an “epic failure”, adding:
	“It is hard to see how continuing this approach could be justified”?
	Will she at least undertake to ask the independent expert panel which reported on the safety, humaneness and effectiveness of year 1 of the cull to report on year 2?

Elizabeth Truss: I thank the hon. Lady for her congratulations. Let us be absolutely clear: the reality is that bovine TB represents a massive threat to our dairy and beef industries. We are looking at the potential loss of over £1 billion of economic growth in our country. We need to look at the best scientific evidence. I have already spoken with the Department’s scientific adviser about this precise subject. We are progressing with our programme, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State outlined.

Maria Eagle: That was a disappointing reply. I am afraid that the Secretary of State has just flunked her first test and missed a golden opportunity to put scientific evidence back where it ought to be in DEFRA—at the very centre of decision making. I would be grateful if she answered this question: will she now give an undertaking to ask the IEP to report on year 2 of the culls, as it did on year 1—yes or no?

Elizabeth Truss: Let us be absolutely clear: we are asking Natural England, which is a proper expert body, to assess how the culls are going and look at what we can do in future. We must use every tool in our toolbox to address this threat to our beef and dairy industries.

Roger Williams: I draw hon. Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I welcome the Secretary of State to her place. She has already demonstrated her commitment to UK food, but does she agree that large supermarkets, such as Tesco, should be encouraged to stock in-season products, such as British lamb, rather than discount New Zealand lamb, during our peak production period?

Elizabeth Truss: I completely agree that British beef and lamb are fantastic products, as is British pork—as an East Anglian MP, I obviously do a lot to promote British pork. I understand that Tesco has entered into a two-year contract with 200 British lamb farmers to help supply British lamb, but I think that we can do more to encourage not only supermarkets to offer local, seasonal food, but people to consume it. That will help our environment and our economy.

Nia Griffith: The Burry inlet in my constituency is once again experiencing mass cockle mortality. Last Thursday, in response to action taken by some of the cockle pickers in my constituency several years ago, the European Commission issued a reasoned opinion in which it named nine agglomerations that are failing to meet the waste water directive, including excessive spills from Gowerton and Llanelli into the Burry inlet, where there are sensitive waters. Although the Welsh Government will clearly be involved, it is the UK Government who are answerable to the European Commission. Will the Minister meet me to discuss this serious issue?

Dan Rogerson: I will not seek to unpick the devolution settlement because, as the hon. Lady quite rightly says, this is a devolved matter. The Welsh Government and Natural Resources Wales will be playing a key role in enforcement and in looking for a way forward, as will Welsh Water, but if she would like to write to me with further details, I will be happy to look into her concerns.

Duncan Hames: I welcome the Department’s commitment to safeguarding our bee population. Now that the pollinator strategy consultation has closed, when will the Government respond and address public concerns about the effect of pesticide use?

Dan Rogerson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that this is crucial for the future. We will finalise the strategy when we have received and considered
	the recommendations from the Environmental Audit Committee’s inquiry into the draft strategy, which was launched in May and is due to report at the end of July.

Barry Sheerman: Does the Secretary of State share my concern that so few young people in our country ever visit the countryside? If she does, will she join my campaign, as many Members across the House have done, to raise £1 million—£5,000 from 200 constituencies would do it—so that more young people from underprivileged schools can visit the countryside?

Elizabeth Truss: I will look into the hon. Gentleman’s campaign. In my previous role as an Education Minister, we introduced the subject of food into the curriculum, both where it comes from and practical cooking, as well as bringing horticulture and agriculture into the design and technology curriculum, precisely to help more children and young people understand where our food comes from and to build the skills they need to work in the food and agriculture industries.

Sheryll Murray: Small-boat fishermen in South East Cornwall and throughout Cornwall are concerned that a discard ban, along with their tiny share of the UK quota from the EU total allowable catch, will affect their economic viability. Does the Minister agree that repatriation of UK waters should have preceded a discard ban? Will he take forward a request to include repatriation of UK waters in future negotiations?

George Eustice: On the small fleets, I point out to my hon. Friend that we have reallocated some of the unused quota from producer organisations to the under-10 metre fleet. My predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), made considerable progress in reforming the common fisheries policy. We now have far greater regional control, with member states multilaterally deciding the management plans, and flexibility on quotas and a legally binding commitment to sustainability.

Bill Esterson: May I press the Secretary of State to talk to her colleague, the Health Secretary, about how GP services in rural areas are under threat? That is a particular concern in my constituency. I urge her to push this point because they are facing a big threat—bigger than that faced by those in many other areas.

Elizabeth Truss: I will certainly be working with the Health Secretary, along with colleagues in other Government Departments, to make sure that we enhance and protect rural services.

David Nuttall: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her appointment as Secretary of State, but is she not just a little disappointed to discover that 90% of her new job is simply to carry out instructions from Brussels?

Elizabeth Truss: I completely agree with my hon. Friend that a lot of red tape is being passed down to us from Brussels. That is why I am determined to negotiate strongly at a European level as well as making sure that agriculture is part of our overall discussions on the EU.

Graham Jones: My constituents and people around the United Kingdom are facing a cost of living crisis. This Government are not doing enough on water affordability. With fewer than 25,000 people eligible to benefit from social tariffs offered by just three water companies, does the Minister believe that the Government’s voluntary approach is insufficient in helping those struggling to pay their water bills?

Dan Rogerson: When the hon. Gentleman says “voluntary approach”, I assume that he is referring to water companies’ implementation of social tariffs. More companies are taking up the option of bringing in a social tariff, having consulted their customers about whether it is right for their area. The biggest thing we can do for people with regard to water bills is to keep the cost down. We have been clear on this matter in our messages to Ofwat. It has taken action and the companies have responded.

Alan Beith: Was the Department’s press office correct in giving the impression last Friday that at least 20 staff will be retained at Alnwick after Steria’s Shared Services organisation moves its operations from there next June?

Dan Rogerson: My right hon. Friend is understandably taking a close interest in the future of what has been a very efficient office. As he knows, Shared Services, with Steria, has bid for contracts on which it was unsuccessful. However, other DEFRA teams at that location will continue to work there in situ.

Lisa Nandy: Earlier in this Parliament, the Secretary of State supported selling off the public forest estate. Does she still?

Elizabeth Truss: We are not going to sell any of the public forest estate. I speak as an MP who has in my constituency one of the largest lowland forests, Thetford forest, which is a fantastic resource for people and nature.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

The right hon. Member for Banbury, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

Food Banks

Hugh Bayley: What support the Church of England is giving to food banks.

Tony Baldry: Four in five of the Church of England’s 13,000 parish churches are supporting local food banks.

Hugh Bayley: Three weeks ago, the Living Wage Commission chaired by the Archbishop of York recommended that the voluntary adoption of the living wage by employers could do much to reduce poverty and dependence on food banks. What advice and encouragement is the Church giving to parishes to become advocates and champions in their communities in order to persuade employers to adopt the living wage?

Tony Baldry: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Church of England is committed to paying all our staff the living wage. I hope that that will be an excellent example for employers voluntarily to follow where the Church of England is leading.
	We understand the broader concerns about food banks. That is why, together with support from the Church Urban Fund and a number of diocesan bishops, I have been, and I am, organising meetings across the country with the Minister for the Cabinet Office to consider the reasons causing people to use food banks and how, collectively, we can move on from them.

Tessa Munt: The Church Commissioners have significant land holdings in and around the village of Westbury-sub-Mendip, and only the Church Commissioners can ensure that the villagers have space to replace their 19th-century school, hall and shop. For some years the parish council and other village organisations have tried, unsuccessfully, to meet the Church Commissioners about their social responsibilities in the village. Could the right hon. Gentleman ensure that those discussions now take place as a matter of urgency, because there are pending planning applications on the Church Commissioners’ land?

Tony Baldry: That is a gloriously ingenious question, but I am not sure whether it entirely follows on from food banks. The Church Commissioners, like any other charity, have a duty to their beneficiaries, who are largely clergy pensioners, in how we manage our investments. We will of course communicate and liaise directly with those who are democratically elected—in my hon. Friend’s case, the local authority—about the appropriate way in which any landholdings we have might be used in the context of the local plan.

ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE

The hon. Member for South West Devon, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked—

UK Voters Overseas

Michael Fabricant: What steps the Electoral Commission is taking to improve registration of UK voters resident in Europe, North America, Israel, the far east and Australasia; and if he will make a statement.

Gary Streeter: The commission runs awareness campaigns to encourage expatriates to register in advance of all elections in which they may vote. These are predominantly online campaigns aimed
	at countries with the highest number of British expats. Thanks to the introduction of individual electoral registration, overseas electors can now register online and no longer require another British passport holder to countersign the registration form. That change, supported by the commission, should make it easier for overseas voters to register.

Michael Fabricant: I am very grateful for that answer. Online registration is good news for Brits overseas. My hon. Friend will know that there are some 1.4 million Brits in Australasia and the United States, and 43,000 in Israel. How is he going to advertise the fact that online registration is available to them?

Gary Streeter: The Electoral Commission will continue to get the message across with targeted press releases to English-language papers and radio stations in the countries where there are large numbers of expats, but its predominant means of seeking to do so is through online campaigning and advertising on websites most likely to be read by expats. Of course, all of us who use social media—my hon. Friend is very skilled at using it—can get this simple message across: “You can now register online!”

Mr Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should always be careful not to put divisible propositions to the House. I will leave it there.

Andrew Gwynne: It is important to allow British citizens living abroad to register to vote, but it is also important that they are able to cast that vote and that it can be counted in good time. What discussions is the hon. Gentleman having with the Electoral Commission to improve the ability of people living abroad to have their vote counted?

Gary Streeter: That is a very good point. This is about not just registration but getting the paperwork to the expat so that they can fill it in as a postal vote and send it back in time. The period for so doing has been extended under recent legislation, and that should make a real difference at the next general election.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

The right hon. Member for Banbury, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

Heritage Lottery Fund (Church Repairs)

Anne McIntosh: What funds were allocated to church repairs from the Heritage Lottery Fund in each of the past three years.

Tony Baldry: Over the past three years, the Heritage Lottery Fund has awarded just under £75 million to 623 projects to repair listed places of worship in England through the grants for places of worship programme and its predecessor, the repairs grants for places of worship programme, which is operated in partnership with English Heritage.

Anne McIntosh: I am grateful for that reply. It is, indeed, a large sum of money. Will my right hon. Friend use his good offices to persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the level at which VAT is set on church repairs and make a plea to reduce it to 5%, which would be perfectly legal?

Tony Baldry: I remind my hon. Friend that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been incredibly generous towards the Church. In May 2012, he and the Government agreed to give £30 million extra a year to the Church so that the listed places of worship grant scheme could enable the equivalent to the VAT bill to be paid on all alterations and repairs to listed buildings. No church should be deterred from undertaking essential repairs and restoration due to fears about the cost of VAT, because they are now covered. The Chancellor made it very clear that he was moving to ease the impact on the churches, in recognition of the massive contribution made by congregations up and down the land to the life of their communities.

Barry Sheerman: The right hon. Gentleman will know that no one begrudges lottery money flowing to protect our great churches, but is he aware that the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills yesterday heartily endorsed crowdfunding as a way for communities to raise money to do good things? Could we interest the Archbishop of Canterbury in crowdfunding so that we can take the pressure off the lottery and use more of its money for other things?

Tony Baldry: I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that the Church of England invented crowdfunding long before anyone else thought of it.

ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE

The hon. Member for South West Devon, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked—

Individual Electoral Registration

Neil Parish: What progress has been made on introducing individual electoral registration in the last six months.

Gary Streeter: The transition to individual electoral registration in England and Wales started on 10 June, and it will begin in Scotland on 19 September. Online electoral registration is now available in England and Wales, and electoral registration officers have begun writing to electors to tell them whether they need to provide any more information to register under the new system. To support the work of EROs and to help to raise awareness of the transition, the Electoral Commission launched a mass media advertising campaign in early July, which will run until 10 August.

Neil Parish: I very much welcome my hon. Friend’s answer. Is not the key to registration to be able to do it as close as possible to elections, but to make sure that it is absolutely secure, so that we know that people who want to vote are genuine voters?

Gary Streeter: As usual, my hon. Friend is quite right. Anyone seeking to register online must provide not only their name and address, of course, but their national insurance number. I hope that that will help young people in particular to register, as long as they can ask their parents for their national insurance number.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

The right hon. Member for Banbury, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

Cathedral Repairs Fund

Sarah Newton: Whether any grants have been made from the first world war centenary cathedral repairs fund.

Tony Baldry: Some £4.77 million has been allocated so far from the £20 million Government repair fund for cathedrals. So far, 22 cathedrals have benefited—18 Anglican and four Catholic.

Sarah Newton: I very much appreciate the grant made to Truro cathedral, and the fund’s recognition of the really important role that cathedrals such as Truro play in local civic and national life. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important to have an ongoing grant-making process to support the vital work of Truro cathedral and, indeed, of cathedrals all over the UK?

Tony Baldry: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is very good news that Truro has received money to repair the cathedral turrets, which were damaged during recent storms. I think we all agree that cathedrals, apart from being very important centres of religious worship, are centres for regeneration, civic pride and tourism potential. The maintenance and repair of our cathedrals is of course a national imperative.

Human Trafficking

Fiona Bruce: What steps the Church is taking to tackle human trafficking.

Tony Baldry: The Church of England has been at the forefront of the parliamentary campaign to abolish slavery, and wants to ensure that everything possible can be done to banish slavery from the world.

Fiona Bruce: Archbishop Welby is garnering increasing respect and admiration in many ways, not least for his international travels to meet and strengthen relationships across the Anglican family worldwide. What is the Church of England doing internationally to develop a more co-ordinated Anglican response to the appalling global phenomenon of human trafficking?

Tony Baldry: My hon. Friend raises a very important issue. Of course, the Church of England was at the forefront of the original campaign, with Wilberforce, to abolish slavery in this country, and we are determined to do everything we can to abolish slavery around the world. The Church of England, together with the Roman Catholic Church and other faiths groups in this country, works through the Global Freedom Network, and in our work around the world, we are determined to do everything we can to eradicate modern-day slavery and human trafficking by 2020.

ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE

The hon. Member for South West Devon, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked—

Individual Electoral Registration

Philip Hollobone: Which groups of voters the Electoral Commission assesses as being least likely to register to vote following the introduction of individual electoral registration.

Gary Streeter: The commission’s research shows that the key groups who were less likely to be registered to vote under the previous household registration system were younger people, private renters, home movers and people from certain black and minority ethnic communities. Following the introduction of individual electoral registration, the public awareness campaign will focus particularly on those groups. The Electoral Commission will closely monitor and report on progress throughout the transition to IER, including action taken by electoral registration officers to target under-registered groups. Online electoral registration will also help to make the registration process more convenient for all groups.

Philip Hollobone: Will those particular groups be targeted by the Electoral Commission, and how often will the House be updated on progress?

Gary Streeter: The multi-media advertising campaign is indeed targeted on groups less likely to be on the register, but it is for our electoral registration officers to decide what campaign they run in their own locality. My advice to all Members of Parliament is to sit down with the ERO in their locality and to make sure that the campaign they are planning for the next six months is adequate and that registration reaches the hardest-to-reach groups.

Mr Speaker: I call John Pugh. Not here.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

The right hon. Member for Banbury, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

Women Bishops

Helen Goodman: What the next steps are on the women bishops measure following the General Synod.

Tony Baldry: The next step is for the Ecclesiastical Committee to meet on Tuesday, when I hope it will pass the measure that was agreed by General Synod on Monday. That will at last enable women to become bishops in the Church of England.

Helen Goodman: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that answer. It is the answer that we have been waiting for the past 20 years to hear. It is very good news for the country and for the Church. I congratulate everybody who secured the result in Synod. When does he think women bishops might be installed, and when does he think they might be introduced into the other place?

Tony Baldry: The answer I feel like giving to the hon. Lady is, “Hallelujah, sister! At last!” After so many years of waiting, the Church of England is going to have women bishops, which will enable it to fulfil its mission as a Church for the whole nation and allow every part of the Church to flourish.
	If the Ecclesiastical Committee approves the measure on Tuesday, subject to the agreement of the Leader of the House I hope to bring the measure to this House in September. I think that the other House hopes to deal with the measure early in October. That would enable General Synod to meet formally in November to do the final approval and promulging of the canon. That would enable the Church of England to appoint the first women bishops this year or early next year.

Martin Vickers: I join my right hon. Friend in welcoming the move towards women bishops. However, for the moment, it is a male preserve. Will he join me in congratulating the Rev. David Court, the new Bishop of Grimsby, who will be consecrated at St Paul’s next week, and wish him well in his work in the Lincoln diocese?

Tony Baldry: Of course. Every bishop in the Church of England is a focus of unity in their own diocese and all bishops undertake incredibly important work. One of the great things about General Synod was that we were able to get agreement for there to be women bishops with no one in the Church feeling hurt or aggrieved. We were therefore able, under the leadership of Archbishop Justin and Archbishop John, to move forward as a united Church.

Child Abuse

Yvette Cooper: (Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary to make a statement about child abuse.

Theresa May: The sexual abuse of children is an abhorrent crime which the Government are absolutely committed to stamping out.
	In my statement to the House last week, I addressed two important public concerns: first, that in the 1980s, the Home Office failed to act on allegations of child sex abuse and, secondly, that public bodies and other important institutions have failed to take seriously their duty of care towards children. As I informed the House on 7 July, the whole Government take the allegations very seriously. That is why I announced two inquiries last week.
	The first is a review led by Peter Wanless, the chief executive of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, with the support of Richard Whittam, QC, of the original investigations that Mark Sedwill, the permanent secretary at the Home Office, commissioned last year into suggestions that the Home Office failed to act on allegations of child sex abuse in the early 1980s. Peter Wanless and Richard Whittam will also look at how the police and prosecutors handled any related information that was handed to them, and examine another recent review into allegations that the Home Office provided funding to an organisation called the Paedophile Information Exchange. Mr Wanless and Mr Whittam are in post and work on the review has begun. Its terms of reference were placed in the Library of the House last week, and I expect the review to conclude within eight to 10 weeks.
	Last week, I also announced a wider independent panel inquiry to consider whether public bodies and non-state institutions have taken seriously their duty of care to protect children from sexual abuse. The Home Office has appointed the head of the secretariat to the panel, which will begin its work as soon as possible after the appointment of the chairman.
	As the House will know, I asked Baroness Butler-Sloss to act as chairman of the panel and she agreed to do so. However, having listened to the concerns that were raised by victim and survivor groups and by Members of this House, Lady Butler-Sloss subsequently came to the conclusion that she should not chair the inquiry. I was deeply saddened by her decision to withdraw, but I understand and respect her reasons. She is a woman of the highest integrity and compassion, and she continues to have an enormous contribution to make to public life.
	Work is ongoing to find the right chairman and members of the panel, and an announcement will be made as soon as possible so that this important work can move forward. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that it is important that the terms of reference for the inquiry are considered carefully. That is why it is right that we should wait until we have appointed a new chairman and a panel, and discuss the terms with them.
	I want this inquiry to leave no stone unturned in getting to the truth of what happened and ensuring that we learn the necessary lessons to protect children and
	vulnerable people in the future. As I said, child abuse is an abhorrent crime that can scar people for life, and the Government are determined to stamp it out. We are working across Government to ensure that victims of historic child abuse who come forward in response to our overarching inquiry get the support and help they need. Our message is clear: the Government will do everything they can to allow the full investigation of child abuse whenever and wherever it occurred, to support victims of it, and to bring the perpetrators of this disgusting crime to justice.
	As Members will be aware from the announcement we heard yesterday about the outcome of the National Crime Agency’s operation, which was reported in the media, child abuse is a crime that continues today. I think that that operation shows our relentless commitment to pursue those engaged in online child sexual exploitation, and it was unprecedented in its degree of co-ordination, with the NCA leading and co-ordinating law enforcement efforts that involved 45 police forces across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It has been ongoing for the past six months. People from all walks of life have been indentified, including those in positions of trust, and 660 arrests have been made and more than 400 children safeguarded or protected.
	Crucial in investigations of online sexual abuse, and matters of this kind more generally, is the question of access to communications data. The Government are committed to tackling the threat to children online, which is why the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill, which was passed by this House on Tuesday and is currently before the other place, is important. It will ensure that law enforcement agencies continue to have access to another vital tool of communications data. Without access to communications data, the investigative capabilities of public authorities in relation to online child abuse would be significantly damaged, and vital evidence would be inaccessible. If companies do not retain that data and we cannot access it, it will become impossible in future to carry out such operations.
	In other areas, the Government are also looking at what actions we can take in relation to this reprehensible crime. That is why in April last year, the Government established a national group to tackle sexual violence against children and vulnerable people, led by the Minister for Crime Prevention, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker). The cross-Government group was established to learn the lessons from some of the recent cases that have emerged and the resulting reviews and inquiries, and as a result of its work we now have better guidance for police and prosecutors, new powers for the police to get information from hotels that are used for child sexual exploitation, and better identification of children at risk of exploitation through the use of local multi-agency safeguarding hubs.
	The Home Office will do everything it can to allow the full investigation of child abuse and the prosecution of its perpetrators. The Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre command of the National Crime Agency works with police forces to investigate child sexual abuse, and has access to specialist officers who could be called on to assist in complex cases. CEOP is already providing support to forces in the robust investigation of child sexual abuse.
	For some time, this House has been considering issues arising from historic cases of child abuse. The news yesterday of more than 600 arrests by the NCA,
	and ongoing investigations into current incidents of child abuse, show that this is not just a problem of the past but is with us today. The Government will do everything they can to work to stamp out child abuse, but there is a wider question for us as a society about how and why these appalling crimes are still taking place today.

Yvette Cooper: I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement and the update she has given the House. She is right to condemn this vile crime that hits vulnerable children and can wreck lives. I also welcome the announcement that the National Crime Agency has safeguarded 400 children and arrested 660 people for child abuse offences as part of a major operation involving many police forces. The House will want to commend the police for that work, and recognise the role of online intelligence and communications data that we discussed earlier this week.
	However, The Times reports today that the same investigation has in fact identified more than 10,000 suspects who are not currently being arrested or pursued through the criminal justice system. It appears that those are in addition to today’s crime statistics, which also show a 20% increase in reported sex offences, a 65% increase in reported child abuse images, and a 27% increase in reported rape. While car crime may be falling, the reports of these serious, often hidden, crimes are going up, and people will be deeply shocked by the scale of online crime that is growing alongside the internet. At the same time, there has been a 9% drop in prosecutions for child sex offences and a 75% drop in the number of convicted criminals who are barred from working with children as a result of the Government’s policy changes. There are real concerns about chaos at the Disclosure and Barring Service, which is not providing consistent information about the number of people being barred.
	Let me ask the Home Secretary the following questions. Can she confirm that the National Crime Agency has identified more than 10,000 suspects as part of its investigation? What is happening to those 10,000 suspects now? Is it true that the police have decided that they do not have the capacity to pursue them? How many of them does she think pose a direct risk to children? Will they be barred from working with children? Can she confirm that there has indeed been a 75% drop in the number of convicted sex offenders who are being barred from working with children? Does she believe that the police and the NCA have the capacity to deal with the scale of this growing crime? Will any of these issues be covered by the child abuse inquiry, which currently has no chair and no terms of reference?
	The Home Secretary will know that I have raised concerns with her over the past few years that the child protection system is currently not strong enough to deal with the scale of the problem that we face. Will she now urgently review Government policy and resources, particularly around online abuse, as well as on the wider issues around child abuse, and rethink the barring system approach? Will she agree to come back to this House in September with an urgent action plan to deal with this very serious crime?

Theresa May: First, may I say that the right hon. Lady is absolutely right to commend the work of police forces, the National Crime Agency and CEOP command? This work is not easy for police officers to undertake. It is very difficult for those who have to look at the evidence
	of child abuse images. We should recognise the valuable and important work they do, and the work that goes on around them to ensure that perpetrators and others involved in this horrendous crime are brought to justice.
	I have made it clear that the work of NCA investigations is ongoing. I am therefore not in a position to indicate anything in relation to how many suspects they might be looking at or the action I might take against those suspects. Those are operational matters and decisions for the NCA to take in consideration with the various police forces involved, but I can assure Members that this is an ongoing investigation.
	The right hon. Lady referred to a number of matters, for example the increase in the number of sex offences being reported. That is indeed the case, but what I think we are seeing in the figures is a number of people coming forward with historic cases of sex offences. While that does have an impact on the figures, I think we would all welcome the fact that there are more people now who feel comfortable in being able to come forward with allegations of these sorts of offences. For too long, people have felt that they would not be believed, and have been hiding their own experiences and keeping them to themselves, rather than surfacing them. It is important that they are coming forward. In some of the historic cases that have gone to trial, some perpetrators have been brought to justice. They have been charged and prosecuted as a result of people coming forward.
	We are, of course, making sure that resources are available. In my response to the right hon. Lady’s question, I indicated that CEOP resources, which are specialist and expertise resources, are being made available to other police forces. The child abuse inquiry is being set up to ensure that we can learn the lessons from the various reviews that have taken place into historic cases. As part of that, I expect it will want to look at what is happening today: whether the lessons from the past are already being dealt with, or whether there are still gaps in what we need to do. Obviously, one of the areas that has increased in recent times is online abuse.
	At the Prime Minister’s summit in November last year, we made it absolutely clear that we are determined to stamp out online child sexual abuse. That is why we have worked with industry to ensure that search engines block images, videos and pathways to child abuse from blacklist search terms used by paedophiles. We are developing a child abuse image database, which will help officers to work more effectively together to close the net on paedophiles and ensure that internet companies can better identify, block and remove illegal images. We have also established the UK-US taskforce to counter online child exploitation. Through that, we are drawing on the brightest and best minds in the industry, law enforcement and academia to stop the internet being used to abuse children. We saw from the National Crime Agency’s operations yesterday the value of setting it up as a strong crime-fighting organisation that has already shown its ability to root out perpetrators of this sort of crime, to deal with them and ultimately to bring them to justice.

Tim Loughton: May I add my congratulations to the NCA for yesterday’s successful operation? It is worth noting that of the 660 arrested, very few were people already on the sex offenders register. This is very difficult work and a reminder that
	we are talking about current abuse going on, in addition to the historic child abuse that we must now investigate. May I suggest to my right hon. Friend that rather than coming forward with a new action plan, as has been suggested, she gives this House a progress report on the child sexual exploitation action plan, which I launched in November 2011, which was multi-agency and multi-departmental? It has been exceedingly successful and no doubt played a major part in bringing a lot of people to justice in yesterday’s operation.

Theresa May: May I commend my hon. Friend for the work he has done in this area over the years? He and I joined this House at the same time, and I know that he has consistently led on child protection issues and has put a lot of work into this area, both when he was children’s Minister and outside that time, and he continues to do so. I will certainly be happy to ask the Minister for Crime Prevention to report to the House on the child exploitation action plan that my hon. Friend developed as the children’s Minister and also on how the group that was set up subsequently is taking that work forward, looking at how it can build on it in a number of other ways, so that we are always looking to ensure that we have the best possible response.

Keith Vaz: May I join the Home Secretary in congratulating those involved in Operations Endeavour and Notarise for the work they have done, which shows the importance of the expertise of CEOP? She is right not to rush in and name a new chair for the inquiry. This needs to be done with care and full consultation, so that the chair can help to choose the panel and fashion the terms of reference. However, I am concerned that not enough is being done by the internet companies. Will she confirm that at the very least she is getting a list or a number of the websites that have been closed down as a result of the summit that took place last November? The public need to be reassured that these websites are being closed. If she gives us regular updates, that would be extremely helpful.

Theresa May: I recognise the right hon. Gentleman’s concern to ensure that as much information as possible is made available to the House on these matters. We have seen action by industry, but we continue to talk to industry about how these issues can be addressed. We will be represented on the UK-US taskforce by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims, whom I welcome to his new position in the Home Office. We are working very closely with industry. It is important to ensure that industry is able to undertake the tasks that we wish it to. It is doing that, but we want to work further with industry to ensure that we are getting the blocking and the filtering absolutely right, so that we can have the maximum impact.

John Hemming: Some of the more serious historic allegations relate to children who were in care at the time of the event. In Jersey, there are allegations that children did not survive to their adulthood to make complaints. In England, the Government still do not record what happens when children disappear from care, using the record “Leaving
	care for other reasons”. Will the Secretary of State talk to her colleagues in the Department for Education about whether we can record when children disappear from care and why they disappear, so that we can audit the process and ensure that children are safe in care today?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend has raised a very important point about how children in care have been, I think in too many cases, failed by the state over the years. This is not an area where the state can have any real confidence. We should, frankly, look back at what has happened to a number of children in care with deep concern. I will certainly take my hon. Friend’s point up with the Department for Education—and also with the Department for Communities and Local Government, because of local authorities’ responsibility.

Barry Gardiner: The Home Secretary rightly spoke of the harrowing effect that working in this area can have on the police officers who have to do this work and see these images. Can she assure the House that the expansion of the work in this area will go hand in hand with an expansion of the care and long-term psychological support packages for those police officers?

Theresa May: Yes. This matter has already been raised. Obviously, the forces and CEOP are aware of the issue that the work can cause for the officers involved and they have programmes and operations in place to support those officers. We shall certainly ensure that those continue.

Edward Garnier: As the Home Secretary will know, I have followed the problems caused by child sex abuse from the point of view of one who has both acted for somebody falsely accused of it and, as a law officer, dealing with historic child sex abuse cases. The importance of the issues and the motives with which Members question my right hon. Friend about them cannot be understated or traduced. However, will she resist the temptation to provide the House with a running commentary about the police or other investigations, which may distract from the difficult work that the police have to do in dealing with these terrible cases? We want the perpetrators to be brought to justice and convicted rather than there being a constant flow of allegation and counter-allegation, either across the House or in the media.

Theresa May: Yes, I absolutely take my hon. and learned Friend’s point. It is important that the House should be updated on the work that the Government are doing in this area, but of course it is not possible for us to update the House in any ongoing way on investigations. These are operational matters for the police, not matters on which politicians take decisions; those are for the police and the National Crime Agency to take.
	It is, however, right that we keep the House apprised of work such as that initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) when he was children’s Minister, and that now taken forward by the Minister for Crime Prevention and the current children’s Minister, so that the House can see the number of areas on which the Government are taking action.

Lisa Nandy: Has the Home Secretary given any thought to the new legal powers that may be needed by this child abuse inquiry but may take some time to establish? My understanding is that records kept by the Whips are not subject to freedom of information, but are subject to data protection. If the inquiry panel has no power to hold those data or compel information to be shared, how will it bring justice for survivors?

Theresa May: The inquiry panel that I have set up is not a statutory inquiry panel under the Inquiries Act 2005. What we have made clear, though, is that if there comes a point at which the chairman of the panel believes that its work could better be carried forward as a statutory inquiry panel under the 2005 Act, we will be prepared to change it into such a panel.

Peter Bone: I am not sure that the Home Secretary quite answered the question put by the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy). I think the hon. Lady was trying to get at whether information held in the Whips Office will be available to the investigation.

Theresa May: I repeat what I said in the House when I gave my statement on this matter on 7 July. The Government are making it clear that we will make papers available to the inquiry panel. I would expect others to make available such information as they hold. It is for various bodies—whoever is approached by the inquiry panel—to decide what information they wish to make available. However, as I have made clear, if the chairman of the panel gets to a point where they believe that a statutory inquiry is the best route, the Government are committed to ensuring that we turn the investigation into a statutory inquiry.

Lilian Greenwood: Does the Home Secretary recognise that there have been allegations about historic abuse in a wide range of institutions, including the former Beechwood children’s home in Nottingham? Will she assure my constituents and those of other Nottinghamshire MPs that if they approach the overarching inquiry, their cases will receive a fair and impartial hearing and they will have access to the proper help and support they need?

Theresa May: I think it important to recognise that the inquiry panel will not itself be able to investigate individual allegations that come forward. It will be looking at what happened in a number of settings such as residential care homes and trying to learn the lessons from that. On individual allegations against a perpetrator, those will be handed on to the police for them to investigate, which is entirely proper. We are working across Government to look at people’s ability to raise cases, the manner in which they will be able to do so, and how those cases will be passed on as appropriate, along with the support given to victims. Together with a number of other MPs, my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Tessa Munt) raised this matter with me earlier this week, and made a number of suggestions about how to take it forward.

Tessa Munt: Bearing in mind the explosion in the number of people willing to report and disclose what happened to them, will the Home
	Secretary ensure that urgent support and extra training is made available for all police officers, so that victims are not necessarily taken across the country for interview, that interviews are not stopped and started again to allow video conditions, and that inadequate referrals for support are not given to victims and their families, who need help when their lives are completely turned upside down?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend makes some very important points. She raises issues that we are looking at in order to ensure that the best form of support is available. I would like to take this opportunity to commend my hon. Friend for the courage she has shown, which will have given great confidence and comfort to other victims.

Diane Abbott: All child sex abuse is horrific, but the Home Secretary will be aware that for many parents, online child sex abuse is particularly frightening because the technology is developing at warp speed, so many children have smartphones, and parents do not feel equipped to protect their children. It is good to work with the industry, but does the Home Secretary appreciate that parents want to know that progress is being made on tackling online child sex abuse—not at the rate that suits the industry, but at the rate that will bring reassurance to parents and families and protection to our children?

Theresa May: Of course we want to ensure that we make progress in a way that can give confidence to parents, who rightly worry about what is happening online. The fact that somebody living thousands of miles away could effectively be in a child’s bedroom through the internet, persuading that child to undertake certain horrific acts is obviously a matter of very real concern. It is right for us to work with the industry, however, which has been responsive on this matter and sees its importance to the public.

Sarah Newton: Will my right hon. Friend join me in praising Devon and Cornwall police officers for their role in Operation Notarise, work with colleagues to ensure that the victims are treated well as they pass through the criminal justice system, and remind the judges of the powers they have to protect such vulnerable witnesses?

Theresa May: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that important point. I commend Devon and Cornwall police and all the other police forces around the country that were involved in undertaking the operation with the National Crime Agency. My hon. Friend will have noticed that the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General, whom I welcome to their new roles, have heard her point. I will also make sure that my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary is made aware of her point about the judiciary.

Jim Cunningham: The Home Secretary mentioned that the police officers were doing a very difficult job. What facilities are available for counselling police officers, and how many officers have needed counselling as a result of the work they are carrying out?

Theresa May: Extensive support is available for police officers doing that job because the problem is recognised. The expertise developed at the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre recognises the impact that such work can have on individual police officers. That support is available for police officers who undertake this difficult work.

Roger Williams: The Home Secretary has rightly emphasised the importance of multi-agency work in safeguarding and protecting children. Some of those agencies operate under devolved legislation. Will she ensure that her Department and the United Kingdom Government as a whole co-operate fully with the devolved nations of the UK, so that children remain as protected as possible?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend has raised an important point. I shall ensure that the work that is being done is discussed with the various devolved authorities.

Pat Glass: In 2010, the then Secretary of State for Education abolished ContactPoint. At the time, I was happy with the assurance that something more streamlined would be in place shortly, but four years have passed, and it has not yet been replaced. What discussions is the Home Office having with the Department for Education to eliminate this gap in the system?

Theresa May: The Department for Education plays a full role in the work that the Home Office does on this issue, including our work in relation to the national group. However, as the hon. Lady will observe, my hon. Friend the Children’s Minister is present, and he will have heard her comment.

Philip Hollobone: The Home Secretary will know that, thanks to their innovative and enthusiastic police and crime commissioner, Northamptonshire police are developing something of a lead in combating the online exploitation of children, but so much of that abuse is international. What expertise from other countries can we draw on, so that we can be at the forefront of tackling this abhorrent crime?

Theresa May: We recognise that, and we have set up a link with the United States in particular. Obviously, a number of internet service providers are based there. We are working closely with the Americans. The UK-US taskforce, whose meetings will be attended by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims, draws on the expertise of people in the industry in both the UK and the United States. We want to get the best brains on this to ensure that we can do the job that we all want to do.

Ian Lucas: In north Wales, 19 people are currently before the courts as a result of Operation Pallial. Will the Home Secretary confirm that if any evidence is unearthed by the inquiries that she set up last week in connection with Government Departments, any information that Departments have will be forwarded to the police so that they can follow it up and prosecutions can take place?

Theresa May: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that any information or evidence uncovered by the inquiry panel or the review of the Home Office’s operations that should go to the police will be passed on, as, indeed, it has been in the past.

Anne McIntosh: May I press the Home Secretary on the question of the breach of trust to which she referred earlier? She said that trust had been breached on a number of occasions. How can we prevent that from happening again? We must not lose sight of child abuse within families, and of how difficult it is to bring to public attention or prosecution.

Theresa May: My hon. Friend has made a very important point. I think that people will have been deeply concerned, indeed shocked, to learn that the list of arrests undertaken by the National Crime Agency and forces which was announced yesterday included a number of people who had been in positions of trust—such as teachers and doctors—and whom others would naturally have assumed they could trust with their children. This is a very important issue, which is why we have a system of vetting people who will be working with children. Of course, we must also ensure that all those who employ people to work in such positions of trust are aware of their responsibilities.

Susan Elan Jones: The Home Secretary may not be aware that yesterday I presented a petition to the House concerning the case of an online paedophile who had made and viewed more than a quarter of a million indecent images of children, a number of which were the more serious level 5 images. He was given a two-year suspended sentence and 300 hours of community service. When I wrote to the Attorney-General asking him to review the sentence, I was told that the Attorney-General does not have the power to review sentences of this nature. Why is that, and will the Home Secretary ensure that the Government change the law to give the Attorney-General that power?

Theresa May: The hon. Lady is right in the case that she has set out. However, she will have seen that the Attorney-General has heard her question and will, I am sure, be considering the point that she has made.

Duncan Hames: The Home Secretary has told us that if the inquiry panel seeks formal inquiry powers, she will be able to grant that request, which is welcome. Former inquiries into child abuse have resulted in some frustration as a result of tight and inflexible remits; this has even been expressed by those conducting the inquiries. If the inquiry panel wishes to amend its remit during the course of its work, will she be in a position to grant that request?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I am very clear that the terms of reference should be discussed with the chairman of the panel and not simply be set out by the Government. If the chairman comes to the Government during the course of the inquiry and feels that it is necessary to amend those terms of reference in any way, we will of course look very seriously at that proposal. We have set the inquiry panel up on the model that was used in the Hillsborough
	inquiry and, having spoken to the former Bishop of Liverpool, Bishop James Jones, in relation to the operation of that inquiry, I understand that people were willing to come forward to that inquiry in a way that might not have been the case under other statutory requirements.

Andrew Gwynne: I have listened carefully to the Home Secretary and I understand that she is saying she cannot confirm the scale of the NCA investigation for operational reasons. However, if—as The Times suggests—the NCA has made a policy decision not to investigate 10,000 suspects because of capacity problems, should not the House be informed of that?

Theresa May: I have made it clear to the House that the NCA investigation is ongoing, both at the level of the NCA and of individual police forces. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman allow the police to make the operational decisions that they need to make. They will of course investigate individuals, but arrests, charges and prosecutions can be brought against people only when the evidence is available.

Chi Onwurah: Many Members have referred to the importance of victims of historical child abuse feeling able to come forward. Indeed, the Secretary of State for Health, in his statement to the House on the Savile investigations, made an appeal for victims to come forward. However, when a constituent of mine made contact, the Department of Health apparently had no process in place to respond and could not give any support, as it had had no guidance as to the response it should make. That constituent now seems to have decided not to take their allegations forward. May I urge the Home Secretary to work with her colleagues to ensure that the Departments—and, indeed, individual Members of Parliament—are aware of these matters and have the necessary guidance and support to enable them to offer support to others, as needed?

Theresa May: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that point again. We are talking across Government about what support needs to be available for those people who wish to come forward with allegations of child abuse, and the Department of Health is one of the key Departments we are talking to. Representatives of that Department sit on the national group that is chaired by the Minister for Crime Prevention, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker). The hon. Lady made a further point, which was also raised
	by my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Tessa Munt), about making information available to Members of the House. It has been suggested that some kind of hotline could be made available, or some other means by which people could put allegations into the system, so that they could be dealt with. We will obviously ensure that Members are made aware of any such arrangements, so that they can let their constituents know what is happening and help them to deal with the situation.

Sheila Gilmore: We have heard from the Home Secretary today and on previous occasions about the good work that the police and others are doing on this issue. It appears, however, that the number of people who have been barred from working with children has actually fallen by 75%. Can she explain this discrepancy or, at the very least, investigate the reasons for it?

Theresa May: The DBS operates in a slightly different way from how it operated previously when it was set up, in that there is automatic barring for people who will be working with children but in certain categories of employment, where people are not working directly with children, people who previously would have been automatically barred are not being so currently. What the DBS does do in its updating service is provide a better system from which ongoing information can be made available to employers. But I make a point I made earlier, which is that employers must recognise the responsibilities they have in considering the individuals they are employing.

Jim Shannon: In the 1970s, the most horrible, wicked and depraved abuse of children took place at Kincora boys home in Belfast, with young people scarred for life as a result. Those abuses allegedly involved those in political life, business and the civil service at the time and were overseen by shadowy groups. A child abuse inquiry is taking place in Northern Ireland. Will the Secretary of State say whether the abuse at Kincora boys home is included in that inquiry? If that is not possible, can it be included in the national inquiry?

Theresa May: I will look into the specific case that the hon. Gentleman has raised. I would, however, expect that where other work is ongoing, such as in the child abuse inquiry in Northern Ireland to which he has referred, the inquiry panel we are setting up would, of course, wish to liaise with the work that is being done there to make sure that nothing is falling through the net and that everything is being looked at.

Business of the House

Angela Eagle: Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?

William Hague: The business for next week is as follows:
	Monday 21 July—Second Reading of the Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill.
	Tuesday 22 July—Motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to data retention, followed by matters to be raised before the forthcoming Adjournment, as selected by the Backbench Business Committee.
	The business for the week commencing 1 September will be:
	Monday 1 September—Debate on a motion relating to hospital car parking charges, followed by a debate on a motion relating to mitochondrial replacement techniques and public safety, followed by a general debate on the position of Hazaras in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The subjects for debate were nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
	Tuesday 2 September—Second Reading of the Pension Schemes Bill.
	Wednesday 3 September—Opposition day (5th allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
	Thursday 4 September—Debate on a motion relating to regulation of the sale of puppies and kittens, followed by a general debate on the future of non-league football, followed by a general debate on the achievement gap in reading between poorer children and their better-off peers. The subjects for debate were nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
	Friday 5 September—Private Member’s Bills.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 8 September will include:
	Monday 8 September—Second Reading of the National Insurance Contributions Bill, followed by business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 4 and 8 September will be:
	Thursday 4 September—Debate on stamp duty and the housing market.
	Monday 8 September—Debate on an e-petition relating to research funding for and awareness of pancreatic cancer.
	If I may, Mr Speaker, I would also like to thank my predecessor as Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley). In the past two years, he has led the successful delivery of the Government’s legislative programme; ensured improved levels of scrutiny by this House; overseen a record number of Bills and measures receiving pre-legislative scrutiny; and piloted continuing reform, making the House increasing relevant to the public. I wish him well for the future and I hope he continues to make a major contribution to public life. Finally, as is customary, may I thank all the staff of the House for their hard work? I hope they enjoy a well-deserved break before the House returns in September.

Angela Eagle: May I associate myself with the wish of the Leader of the House that our staff and all the staff of the House have a restful holiday?
	Let me take this opportunity to pay tribute to the right hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley), who this week left his post as Leader of the House after two years in the job. May I say how much I have enjoyed working with him, especially in our joint duties as members of the House of Commons Commission, and may I wish him all the best for the future, although the Leader of the House has made an intriguing comment about what that might be?
	Once again, I take the opportunity to welcome the First Secretary of State and Leader of the House of Commons, the right hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague) to his new responsibilities. I thank him for next week’s business and the provisional business for our first weeks back in September.
	On Monday, we will debate the pleasing sounding but completely vacuous Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill—a five-clause Bill that does something that the previous Labour Government legislated for in 2006. The Government could bring in a new law to guarantee rights for victims of crime or deal with the meltdown in probation or tackle the prisons crisis, so can the Leader of the House tell us why they are wasting time with this PR exercise?
	This morning, we discovered that the Liberal Democrats had made their most shameless U-turn since their last one: this time it is the bedroom tax. We told them it would create misery and save no money, but their votes got it on to the statute book, and their votes defended it time and again. Given that there is now no majority in this House for the continuation of this pointless and cruel tax, will the Leader of the House make time for an emergency debate before the summer recess so that we can consign it to the dustbin of history?
	Less than a month ago, the Prime Minister was leading the charge against Jean-Claude Juncker because nobody knew who he was. Now he has appointed an EU commissioner who has such presence that when he tried to resign from the Government, the Prime Minister did not even notice. Only last month, Lord Hill was telling ConservativeHome that he did not want the role because
	“I quite like it at home here in the British Isles.”
	When asked if he would accept the job as EU commissioner, he said, “No! No! No!” We know the trouble that was caused when that phrase was last heard in here. Lord Hill might not be a household name, but we really cannot fault his enthusiasm for the job! Two weeks ago, the Prime Minister told my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) that he would support parliamentary scrutiny of his nominee for the European Commission, so can the Leader of the House set out what form that scrutiny will take and when we can expect more detail?
	This week’s super-spun but chaotic reshuffle was supposed to unite the Tory party, but the modernisers are furious, the right is furious, and the Eurosceptics never stop being furious. The Prime Minister says his new Cabinet is a team that represents Britain, but it is 95% white, 77% male and nearly 50% privately educated. That is not a Britain that most people recognise.
	The Prime Minister appointed an equalities Minister who voted against gay marriage and sacked his own Minister for modernisation. It is no wonder that the Deputy Prime Minister just said on the radio that
	“the head bangers have now won”
	in the Conservative party.
	I am glad to see that the Leader of the House is settling in to his new role. He spent four years travelling the world. He has rubbed shoulders with Angela Merkel; hobnobbed with Angelina; and now he is stuck with Commons Angela. In the words of the former Education Secretary, I do not know whether he would call that demotion, emotion, promotion or locomotion, but I certainly look forward to it. May I also congratulate him on his success in negotiating a huge pay rise for the Leader of the House in a triumph that surely indicates he has a new career opening up when he leaves Parliament at the next election as a trade union negotiator!
	I welcome the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) to—I was going to say to his new job as Chief Whip, but he is not in his place. [Hon. Members: “Where is he?”] He has not had the most auspicious of starts. Yesterday, he not only lost his first vote, but he managed to get stuck in the toilet in the wrong Lobby, and nearly broke his own whip. We know all about the former Education Secretary’s love of free schools, independent of any central authority, so I wonder whether he is keen to allow the emergence of lots of free Tory MPs, who do not have to submit to his authority. At least the only book that he can ban now is “Erskine May”. When the Prime Minister asked the Chief Whip to take up his new role, he apparently asked him to become the “hand of the king”. Now, I am no “Game of Thrones” expert, but is it not the case that so far the hands of the king have been variously beheaded, knifed and shot with a harpoon—and all by their own side? I note that the last time a Conservative Foreign Secretary became Leader of the House he helped to depose the Prime Minister a few months later.
	As this is our first business questions together, may I just say, “Welcome to the cause”?

William Hague: I am very grateful to the hon. Lady, in particular because hardly any of her questions were about the business of the House, but I entirely understand that.
	The hon. Lady joined in the tributes to my predecessor. It was not meant to be intriguing to wish him well. I think that it is taking criminology and conspiracy too far to think that an innocent wishing of him well is to be interpreted in some deep way, but I know that the whole House will join in wishing him well. I also thank her for her welcome. I have a great respect for the hon. Lady and look forward to working and sparring with her. She pointed out that the last Conservative Foreign Secretary to become Leader of the House joined in deposing the Prime Minister. I am unsure whether the Foreign Secretary in question expected or wanted to become Leader of the House, whereas I asked for this duty, which I am delighted to take up. I am a strong believer in the power, vitality, role and relevance of the House, as well as in the policies of Her Majesty’s Government and the support of those policies by all coalition parties. I look forward to advancing both those things.
	The hon. Lady will have to be careful with some things, such as criticising the nomination of Lord Hill for European Commissioner. This is quite a big glasshouse
	in which to throw stones, given what happened the last time a commissioner was appointed. Lord Hill occupies the same position that Baroness Ashton occupied when she was appointed by the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown). She was appointed after the most chaotic saga: Lord Mandelson was to be the nomination, then was not, then various other former members of the Cabinet were, and then Baroness Ashton appeared at the last moment. This is a dramatically more orderly process with a strong candidate, whom we will support. I will of course be happy to discuss with the Select Committees what the process should be for the House taking evidence from the nominee. I will have the advantage over the hon. Lady of being able to pronounce Llanelli a little better than her, but that comes from having been Secretary of State for Wales in my extensive political career—

Ian Lucas: Shortly to end!

William Hague: Well, it is shortly to end—intentionally—but I assure Opposition Members that I am going to enjoy it a lot before it ends.
	The hon. Lady joined in welcoming the new Chief Whip and made fun of what he was doing yesterday. Knowledge of who is in the toilets in whatever Lobby is an important piece of information for any Chief Whip. I take it as evidence that he was carrying out his duties very assiduously.
	The hon. Lady also commented on the Government reshuffle. The Cabinet will meet tomorrow and eight women will be sitting around the Cabinet table, which is more than ever before. One third of the Conservative members of the Cabinet are now women. The Liberal Democrats intend to catch up in the coming decades. It is an even higher proportion than was achieved under the previous Government and we are proud of that.
	The hon. Lady asked about holding an emergency debate on what Liberal Democrats have said today about the spare room subsidy. I do not think we will be able to have an emergency debate on every occasion they change their policy, but—[Laughter.] I am deeply fond of our coalition partners. I helped to negotiate the coalition and despite what I have just said I am enjoying working with my deputy, the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake).
	No representations have been made within the Government about this. It is an important policy and the Government’s policy remains unchanged. There were 1.7 million households waiting for social housing in April 2013 and 1.5 million spare rooms across the working age social sector in Great Britain, so this is an important reform. I look forward to working with the hon. Lady and hon. Members from all parties across the House.

Edward Leigh: As the first Back Bencher to be called, may I warmly welcome the First Secretary of State to his post? I hope he does not view this as a gentle full stop to a most distinguished career and that he will be a reforming and great Leader of the House of Commons. Will he, in his remaining year in politics, push the reform agenda forward and, in particular, may we have a business of the House committee? That would transform Parliament and ensure that Parliament was in control of the business. Will he do it?

William Hague: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Having had my first meeting with the Procedure Committee, I do not regard this as a gentle end to my political career. There will be a lot to do, so he need not be concerned about that. He knows that there has been previous discussion about a business committee and that no consensus has been arrived at. I know that there is strong consensus between him and my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), who is sitting next to him, but that is not a universal consensus, even though it might seem like that to him. I look forward to discussing this with him and to discussing any concern or opinion raised by my hon. Friends or by hon. Members, but there has been no consensus so far.

David Winnick: Will the Leader of the House accept that the most successful Leaders of the Commons have been those who while recognising their responsibilities in the senior ranks of Government have nevertheless in practice borne in mind their responsibility to the House as a whole? Perhaps, despite what he has said, when we come back we could have a debate on the bedroom tax. That would give an opportunity for the Liberal Democrats to explain why they supported it in the first place, without which it would not have become legislation, and why, so near the general election, they have changed their minds.

William Hague: I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman about the role of the Leader of the House. I hope there will be plenty of evidence of that over the remainder of the Session and I shall endeavour to make sure that there is. On the question of a debate, I have just announced that on the Wednesday of the first week back in September there will be a Opposition day debate, subject to be announced. It is very much open to the Opposition to choose that subject or any other subject they wish.

Charles Kennedy: In welcoming the Leader of the House to his new responsibilities, may I appeal to the notable and, indeed, readable historian in him as he occupies this important office? Given this week’s events, as yesterday the House of Lords was understandably unhappy about its perception that for the first time in contemporary political history there is no fully fledged Member of the Lords in the Cabinet, and given recent events in the coalition, with the Liberal Democrats’ belated U-turn on the bedroom tax—it would be churlish of me, as I did not support it, not to welcome that—and with what the Conservative side of the coalition is saying about its future plans over the European Court of Human Rights, will he consider over the recess the appropriateness of him or the Prime Minister making a statement to the House about the nature of collective Cabinet responsibility and the conduct of government in both Houses for the remainder of this Parliament?

William Hague: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. He raises an important point about the importance of Cabinet government and collective Government responsibility. On his first point about concern in the House of Lords, there need not be such concern. When the Cabinet meets tomorrow, all full members of the Cabinet and those attending Cabinet have exactly the same rights and join in exactly the same discussion, so it
	is not a distinction about which there needs to be a huge constitutional debate. My right hon. Friend is a great admirer of politics across many European countries, many of which are used to having coalition Governments and an election going on at the same time, and maintaining the Government working together while parties within a coalition sometimes set out different positions for what will happen after that election. We are a mature enough democracy in this country to be able to cope with that.

Nigel Dodds: On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I join in warmly welcoming the new Leader of the House to his position and thank the previous Leader of the House for his work on behalf of the whole House. I have no doubt that interest in the business for the following weeks will increase enormously in the remainder of this Parliament as a result of this appointment. Given the right hon. Gentleman’s previous responsibilities as Foreign Secretary, will he consider updating the House regularly about progress in the search for the schoolchildren in Nigeria whose kidnapping evoked an enormous public response? The British Government have given aid and assistance, and it would be worth the House and the public knowing where things stand.

William Hague: I am grateful for the warm welcome from the right hon. Gentleman. The United Kingdom remains very strongly engaged not only in the work to find those schoolchildren—we have military assets that have been joining in that—but in working with the Nigerians to ensure that a vastly greater number of girls are able to go to school in Nigeria. When I hosted the Foreign Minister of Nigeria here last month, I announced British assistance to help a million more girls go to school in Nigeria. I know that my successor as Foreign Secretary will want to keep the House updated and it is Foreign Office questions next Tuesday.

Peter Bone: The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) stepped down from the role of Foreign Secretary and became an excellent Leader of the House. He was the House’s representative in Government, not the Government’s representative in the House. I am sure my right hon. Friend will follow that example. He is very committed to the coalition, and he will know that it is a coalition agreement to have a business of the House committee by the end of the third year of this Parliament. It is slightly past the third year of this Parliament, so when are we going to have that business of the House committee?

William Hague: I join in my hon. Friend’s tribute to the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), who was not only an extremely energetic Foreign Secretary but successfully applied himself to the rigours of this job too, and I will follow his example in doing so, although there is a bit of both in representing the House in the Government and the Government’s views to the House. That is understood. These things have to be reconciled. My hon. Friend is a doughty champion of the cause of a business committee. I will be very happy to discuss that with him but, as I pointed out earlier to our hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), no consensus has yet been established on that.

Mr Speaker: May I point out for the benefit of the House that the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) tends to be at business questions every week and, in my experience, he has never been averse to repetition?

Barry Sheerman: Perhaps I will strike a slightly discordant note, although I get on very well with the Leader of the House as a fellow Yorkshire MP whom I have known for a long time. The world is almost in meltdown in so many places—the slaughter of the innocents in Gaza and the Israeli conflict with Gaza—and he has left the deck at a crucial time. Many people in our country will ask, “Why? We are looking to him as a seasoned and experienced Foreign Secretary to play a leading part in that”, so my welcome is tempered. May we have an early debate on the situation in Gaza? There is time next Monday or Tuesday. The world is distressed indeed at the recent deaths, so may we have a debate soon?

William Hague: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the number of crises in the world; any discordant note simply shows the way Yorkshire Members are used to speaking to each other anyway. I know that my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary are well on top of all those issues. Having long-running crises in the world does not mean that exactly the same people have to deal with them all the time; there is a balance between experience and renewal, as I said on Monday night. I made a statement, as Foreign Secretary, about Gaza on Monday. I know that my successor will want to keep the House well informed. We have Foreign and Commonwealth Office questions next Tuesday, so there will be an opportunity to discuss this next week.

Robert Halfon: Last week I met my local nurses’ union in the Princess Alexandra hospital in Harlow to discuss nurses’ pay and conditions and hospital car parking charges. May we have a statement on nurses’ pay and hospital car parking charges so that we can do everything possible to alleviate the problems that lower-paid nurses are facing and ensure that all nurses are paid fairly? [Interruption.] I also ask my right hon. Friend to suggest to the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) that he keeps his trap shut, because the Opposition do not have a policy on this—

Mr Speaker: Order. That is enough. It is unlike the hon. Gentleman, who is a very competent parliamentarian, but that was tasteless. Also, I say in all courtesy to the hon. Gentleman, whose interest and commitment I always seek to accommodate, that his question was simply too long.

William Hague: To give a short answer, my hon. Friend is a strong champion of the national health service, particularly in his constituency, and he is right to recognise the great service given to all our constituents by nurses in the NHS. That is why our priority has been to staff the front line properly, including with over 4,000 additional nurses since the last general election. All NHS staff will receive a rise of at least 1% in each of the next two years. I know that he will continue to raise his concerns, including in the Back-Bench business debate on hospital car parking charges that he has secured in September.

Ian Lucas: The Leader of the House, having set up the Waterhouse inquiry when Secretary of State for Wales, and having been present for part of the previous urgent question, will be aware of the real concern in north Wales that the House should be kept informed over the next few months. Will he have a word with the Home Secretary to ensure that she informs the House of the terms of the new inquiry and about what is happening with the Macur review, which she set up?

William Hague: Those are very important issues, as I remember all too well from my time as Secretary of State for Wales. There will be intense and continuing concern in north Wales about them. We have just had an urgent question on the matter, and I think that it was well understood across the House that the terms of reference for what the Home Secretary has announced must be got right and that the right person to lead the inquiry must be found. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) made that point earlier. I know that the Home Secretary will want to keep the House updated on that and on the other matters the hon. Gentleman raises.

Michael Crockart: One month ago the Pakistan army launched Operation Zarb-e-Azb against militants in north Waziristan, but it did so without giving any prior notification to the civilian population, in stark contrast to previous operations in Swat and south Waziristan. May we have an urgent statement from the Foreign Office to update the House on what is being done to help the now 1 million internally displaced persons, many of whom fled their homes with nothing, and on what assistance the UK Government and others can give?

William Hague: The hon. Gentleman is quite right to raise those important matters and the terrible circumstances for many of the people affected. The Government of Pakistan face a tremendous challenge in establishing order and defeating terrorism in parts of the country, so we should show some solidarity with the Government of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in doing that. The hon. Gentleman will have opportunities to raise those matters in Adjournment debates and in Foreign and Commonwealth Office questions next Tuesday.

Mark Tami: I, too, welcome the Leader of the House to his new job. May we have a debate as soon as possible on ongoing issues at the Passport Office? Staff in my office contacted the MPs hotline yesterday with an urgent case but were told that they could contact the Liverpool office only by e-mail and not by phone. I suggest that the Home Office should invest in some phones for the Liverpool office and some people to man them so that we can get these urgent cases sorted out as quickly as possible.

William Hague: The House has been able to discuss over recent weeks the problems that have arisen from a huge increase in demand for passports—the highest demand in 12 years. Of course, it is very important that specific cases raised by hon. Members are dealt with quickly, so I will absolutely inform the Home Office of what the hon. Gentleman has said. We have already deployed an additional 1,200 people as call handlers on the helplines, and we are providing another 300 staff and longer
	opening hours. A lot of good work is being done in dealing with this, but, as I say, I will absolutely refer to my colleagues what he has said.

David Nuttall: I start by warmly welcoming my right hon. Friend to his new role in the House. May we please have a debate on the junior individual savings account scheme for young people in care, which was announced in the 2011 Budget and which is operated by the Share Foundation charity? The scheme provides a small capital fund for some of the most vulnerable young people, and 145 young people in the care of Bury MBC currently benefit from it. A debate would give this House the opportunity to explore ways in which it could be used and developed in future.

William Hague: I thank my hon. Friend for his welcome. He makes a very important point: over 50,000 junior ISAs for children in care have now been opened, with an initial contribution of £200 from the Government. A young person’s transition to independence is a very critical period, and for care leavers it is even more critical. This is giving people savings and a financial education that they would not otherwise receive, and my hon. Friend can be sure that that will remain a priority for this Government.

Jim Sheridan: I think it is fair to say that the Leader of the House got off to a flying start. May I remind him that this year is the 40th anniversary of the illegal occupation of Cyprus by Turkey? Will he therefore arrange for a statement by the Foreign Secretary to inform us of exactly what the UK Government, the guarantor of power, are doing to mark this anniversary to ensure that we do not have another 40 years of illegal occupation?

William Hague: As the hon. Gentleman knows, and as I have pointed out before, we have Foreign and Commonwealth Office questions on Tuesday, so there will be plenty of opportunities to raise this. Of course, the UK Government support all those working for a solution to the Cyprus question. We have done a great deal of that in recent months, particularly working with President Anastasiades. Talks in recent months have made some progress, and we will continue to encourage that. I know that Foreign Office Ministers will be able to talk about that.

Philip Davies: I think everybody in the House is looking forward to my right hon. Friend’s time as Leader of the House, apart, perhaps, from the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), who might not be looking forward to it with as much glee as the rest of us.
	Last year, a person already convicted of burglary offences on 65 separate occasions committed another burglary and was still not sent to prison. Surely it is an outrage that a burglar committing a 66th burglary is not sent to prison for many years, let alone avoids prison altogether. May we have a debate on this so that we can look at measures to tackle pathetic sentencing guidelines and even more pathetic judges?

William Hague: I know that my hon. Friend is as regular an attendee of business questions as any Leader of the House. He puts his question in a typically restrained way, of course, but he makes a valid point. I am sure that over the coming months there will be opportunities to raise these matters. The Government have achieved a 10% reduction in overall crime, but that does not mean we have attended to everything, and his point is well heard.

Jim Cunningham: Is the Leader of the House aware that last Saturday between 7,000 and 8,000 Coventry City fans demonstrated in Coventry against what has been going on between the football club and the other parties concerned? The Culture, Media and Sport Committee did a report on this some time ago, so when are we going to have a debate on it? Will the Leader of the House bear in mind the fact that the club has not conformed to the rules of the football league? Why can we not have a debate, in general terms, on the football league and how we regulate it?

William Hague: I do not want to comment on the details. The hon. Gentleman asks why we cannot have a debate, but there are well-established mechanisms for having a debate, including through applying for Adjournment and Backbench Business debates. I encourage him to take those opportunities.

Chris Heaton-Harris: I wonder whether we could have a debate on the political career to date of my right hon. Friend. He might occasionally regret it, but he started a number of us off in our elected political careers and it would be a fitting way for some of us to say thank you.

William Hague: That is an innovative idea, but I think such a debate would be a little self-indulgent of me and I would be somewhat criticised for it. I am very proud to have helped launch m hon. Friend on his political career with the slogan “In Europe, but not run by Europe” in 1999. I am pleased that it has helped to carry him all this way.

Margaret Ritchie: May I welcome the Leader of the House to his new position? Could we have a debate on the reinstatement of the aggregates levy credit scheme, which was halted by the European Commission in consultation with the Treasury back in autumn 2010? It benefited the construction industry in Northern Ireland. Some four years later, it has not been reinstated, despite the fact that much information has been submitted by the Treasury and the Northern Ireland Executive. It is important, because we are in ongoing competition with the quarry industry in the Republic of Ireland and it would bring benefit.

William Hague: I understand the importance of what the hon. Lady says and I thank her for her welcome. I do not have any new information to give her, although the Northern Ireland Secretary is in her place and will have heard what she has said. I will also remind the Treasury of what she has said. I cannot offer any immediate debate, but, as I have said, there are well-established channels for going about securing a debate.

Christopher Pincher: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on war crimes, particularly those committed many years ago? That would enable us to discuss the 1971 civil war in Bangladesh and the war crimes committed then. I also hope it would encourage the Government to encourage the Bangladeshi Government in their pursuit of a fair and transparent legal process, to ensure that the criminals from 1971 are finally brought to justice.

William Hague: My hon. Friend is, of course, right to stress the importance in any country of a fair and transparent process. That is something that I discussed with the Government of Bangladesh in my previous role as Foreign Secretary. My hon. Friend makes a very important and valid point about that. The House has been able to discuss issues of war crimes many times over recent decades. I cannot offer my hon. Friend an immediate debate, but he understands very well how to go about getting one.

John Cryer: May I, too, welcome the Leader of the House to his position? The Foreign Office’s loss will be this Chamber’s gain.
	Following on from the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), could we have a statement on Gaza on Tuesday, after Foreign Office questions? I am aware that the right hon. Gentleman made a statement on Monday in his previous role, but the situation is not just dreadful, particularly given the increasing number of deaths of children, but is changing very rapidly, so could we have a statement on Tuesday?

William Hague: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will assess the case for a statement in addition to answering questions on Tuesday. I do not want to commit him to that, but it has been our habit over the past four years to have regular statements on developing crises. Of course, the hon. Gentleman is right that the situation continues to develop. There have been further tragic deaths in Gaza. I am pleased that there is a humanitarian ceasefire in force for a short time today, but of course what we really need is an agreed and sustainable ceasefire and a restoration of the ceasefire of November 2012.

Geoffrey Cox: The Supreme Court has recently suggested that our law on assisted suicide may not be compatible with article 8 of the European convention on human rights, and it has issued an invitation to the House to consider that question. When will we respond to the invitation?

William Hague: The Prime Minister indicated yesterday that we will give consideration to that matter. It is an important and topical issue, on which there are very strong feelings—not on any party basis—and there is intense interest in the debate about it in the House of Lords tomorrow. I will reflect on when it would be appropriate to have such a debate, as well as on the various means of bringing it about. I cannot yet promise one in Government time.

Keith Vaz: I join Members in their unanimous welcome to the new Leader of the House, and I pay tribute to him for his outstanding
	work at the Foreign Office. May I take him back to one of his successes—Yemen—and the democratic transition that resulted in the election of President Hadi? The situation is now very critical, with 11 million people in poverty and al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula making enormous gains. May we have a statement or a debate on that? I know we have Foreign Office questions on Tuesday, but we cannot deal with it in just one question.

William Hague: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, whose knowledge of and concern about Yemen has been remarkable, constant and much respected over many years. He is right that a great deal of progress has been made, as we saw when the Friends of Yemen met in London under our chairmanship a couple of months ago. He is also right that formidable problems remain, and it is now very important that the help the international community has pledged is delivered and used successfully by President Hadi and his colleagues. There has been widespread demand in the House for statements by the Foreign Secretary, and I will not commit my successor to a long list of them—hon. Members will have to use Foreign Office questions—but I know that he will make as many statements as he can about such topical issues.

Alan Reid: It has just taken 18 days to repair a mobile phone mast on the island of Islay. That is completely unacceptable, and it is not an isolated incident. Part of the difficulty is that many different telecommunications companies were involved in the repair, and it is difficult to pin down which has responsibility. May we have a statement on how licence conditions might be tightened to make sure that companies have to carry out repairs speedily? After all, people have to be able to make calls in an emergency.

William Hague: My hon. Friend makes a point that is very important for his constituents. Eighteen days does seem unusually long and an unacceptable time for such repairs. I will ask the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to respond to him directly, and depending on how satisfied he is by that answer, he may want to press the case for further and wider action.

Karl Turner: Given the road to Damascus conversion by Lib Dems on the viciously unfair and punitive bedroom tax, please may we have an urgent debate on that policy, or at least a debate on the apparent hypocrisy of Lib Dems?

William Hague: I think it would strain the coalition a little too much if I launched a debate with that particular title, but it is open to the Opposition, who have an Opposition day on the Wednesday in the first week back, to have a debate on that topic if they so wish.

Marcus Jones: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his new appointment. May I also congratulate him on his appointment as the Prime Minister’s special representative on preventing sexual violence in conflict, and thank him for his personal commitment on an issue that affects millions of women, men, boys and girls around the world? Will he make a statement to update the House on how he will take forward that vital campaign in his new role?

William Hague: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend both for his welcome and for referring to my role as the Prime Minister’s special representative on that issue. As he and the House will know, I feel passionately about it, and we have begun to make some progress on changing attitudes globally on sexual violence in conflict. A written statement has been published by the Foreign Office within the past few days, which sets out what we will do next to deliver practical change in various countries where this problem has been endemic. I look forward to helping to drive that forward—still working with many other countries—over the next 10 months.

Kate Green: Will the Leader of the House arrange for the new Minister for disabled people, the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), to make a statement on the Access to Work scheme, which is often described as the Government’s best kept secret? This morning, I was informed that any contact with the Access to Work electronic mailbox receives the response, “This mailbox is full and cannot receive messages.” With a response like that, it is hardly surprising that it is such a secret.

William Hague: The hon. Lady raises an important topic. It is important that people receive a response and that the system works well. I will tell my colleagues who handle those matters, including the Minister of State, of her concern and have it looked into.

Andrew Jones: I join colleagues in warmly welcoming my right hon. Friend to his place. Last week, we had the announcement on the local growth deals, which saw funding allocated to colleges across the country, including £4 million to Harrogate college. May we have a debate when we get back from the recess on how important colleges are in our education system because of their combination of academic and vocational qualifications, the offer of apprenticeships and their major contribution to delivering the skills that businesses need?

William Hague: I cannot promise such a debate, given all the pressing matters that the House has to deal with, but my hon. Friend is quite right to raise the issue. Indeed, Harrogate college is one of the very long list of things that we are proud of in North Yorkshire. He raises the importance of local growth to our long-term economic recovery, which will be supported not least by last week’s announcement of £6 billion for local growth deals. He highlights the importance of colleges in the education system. I know that he will join me in welcoming the £1 billion that has been put into the Youth Contract for more apprenticeships, work experience places and wage incentives.

Alison Seabeck: Lawyers in Plymouth are very angry. The right hon. Gentleman’s constituents and mine are getting pretty desperate in their attempts to find ways to access the law, particularly those who are on low pay. The latest issue is the summer contract changes. Lawyers are becoming very worried that they will not be able to meet the timetable and that law firms will close. Will he please encourage the Justice Secretary to come to the House in September to update Members on the effect of that change?

William Hague: I will, of course, alert my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary to the hon. Lady’s concerns. There will be an opportunity to raise them with him at the next session of questions to the Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary, and I encourage her to do so.

Jeremy Lefroy: Our sitting in September will be the last opportunity to debate the future of the United Kingdom before the Scottish referendum. Will my right hon. Friend find Government time to debate that most important of issues for the United Kingdom and the people of Scotland?

William Hague: That will be a very important time for the people of the whole of the United Kingdom. The decision will be made by the people of Scotland. The debate will go far beyond this House and will be conducted on the airwaves and doorsteps of Scotland. Many hon. Members will join that debate in September, and that is probably the appropriate place for it to be conducted.

Barry Gardiner: One of Britain’s most eminent scientists, a fellow of the Royal Society and the principal of Jesus college Oxford, Lord Krebs, last week published a report that said that, given the Government’s spending plans, two thirds of our flood defences will be inadequate. May we therefore have a debate on the preparation for winter floods in the UK, so that the new Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs can find a new ingenious form of words or some new outrageous statistics to justify what the Government are doing?

William Hague: Those are important issues. The hon. Gentleman will know that over our period in government we have spent more on flood defences than was spent in the equivalent period before. I believe that there were many questions about this issue at Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions today, because it is an important topic. I know that my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will be interested in what he has to say and in the work of Lord Krebs. I cannot offer an additional debate, but the opportunities to discuss this matter with DEFRA Ministers will continue.

Tessa Munt: Will the Leader of the House find time to discuss with the Health Secretary why NHS England is refusing to spend any of the extra £42 million that the Department has made available for increasing the use of radiotherapy this year on treating cancer patients with stereotactic ablative radiotherapy, which works?

William Hague: As my hon. Friend knows, we introduced the cancer drugs fund which, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said in the House, is not only for drugs but also for innovative treatment. There have been changes in the way radiotherapy is carried out and new technology is used, but as the Prime Minister said—I know this applies to Health Ministers—we would be happy to discuss the matter in more detail with my hon. Friend.

Khalid Mahmood: Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on the role of the police and crime commissioners policy
	that his Government introduced? Such a debate would allow me, and indeed the whole House, to pay our respects and condolences to Bob Jones, the police and crime commissioner for the west midlands who died unexpectedly earlier this month. It would also allow us to recognise that he was a great and committed public servant who was never too busy to meet the people he served. He was a great friend and a great comrade.

William Hague: The hon. Gentleman has used this opportunity to pay tribute to Bob Jones. I remember hearing about him, and across the House we are sad to hear of the tragic death of a very fine public servant. I join the hon. Gentleman in sending condolences and tributes to the family of Mr Jones.

Philip Hollobone: I welcome the Leader of the House to his new role and thank him for the dedication, energy and enthusiasm that he put into the role of Foreign Secretary. Before he became Foreign Secretary, he played a key role on an individual level in negotiating the coalition agreement, going through it line by line, paragraph by paragraph. He will remember that in chapter 24 at the bottom of page 27 are the words:
	“A House Business Committee, to consider government business, will be established by the third year of the Parliament”.
	Consensus was achieved when those words were written, and I know my right hon. Friend attaches huge importance to upholding the tenets of the coalition agreement. In the last year of this Parliament, will he introduce the Hague reforms, to allow the House of Commons to timetable its own business as long as it allows the Government to get through their legislation?

Mr Speaker: That could be the Hague-Hollobone-Bone reform.

William Hague: That would be quite a mouthful, Mr Speaker. I remember pretty much every line of the coalition agreement—I certainly remember every minute of negotiating it, which was quite a painstaking process. My hon. Friend is right that that commitment is in the coalition agreement, and as he knows it was raised earlier today by two of our hon. Friends. I know there are strong feelings about this issue and consensus on it in part of the House, but I do not think there is consensus across the whole House. I would be happy to discuss the matter further with my hon. Friend, but I do not envisage the situation changing at the moment.

Emma Lewell-Buck: I, too, welcome the Leader of the House to his new position. Despite the Government’s claims that they will tackle false self-employment, construction firms continue to exploit loopholes which mean that people like my constituent, Ron Boyle, are losing hundreds of pounds every month. Will the Leader of the House give the House time to debate that issue and discuss how those loopholes can be closed, so that people like Mr Boyle are not robbed of a fair wage?

William Hague: The fair treatment of people in all walks of life and employment is always an important issue for the House, and raising and redressing such matters is part of why we exist. I understand why the hon. Lady has raised the issue, although I do not have a lot of time
	to give away for debates. That sort of issue can be raised in an Adjournment debate and at questions or through the Backbench Business Committee, and I hope she will go about it in that way.

Bill Esterson: May we have a debate on GP services? In Hightown in my constituency, the GP practice is staffed by locums, despite promises that a full-time doctor would be employed when a change was made to the running of the practice. Patients cannot get appointments and, as a result, many have to leave and go elsewhere. May we have a debate on GP surgeries in communities such as Hightown, so that we can discuss how to ensure that the decline that patients are experiencing is reversed?

William Hague: These issues are discussed often in the House. It is clear that the demand to see a GP has gone up greatly. The Royal College of General Practitioners says that there are 40 million more GP appointments a year than there were five years ago. We are trying to ensure that our resources are focused on increasing the number of clinical staff. We are increasing the number of newly qualified doctors who go on to train to become a GP to 50% by 2020. A great deal is going on to improve these services, but the hon. Gentleman has made his point about his local situation.

Tom Blenkinsop: I congratulate my constituency neighbour on his new position. Earlier, the right hon. Gentleman said that he will have to come to this place often and reflect the Government’s position to the House. With his new powers, will he give us a statement on whether he supports or opposes the Health Secretary’s confirmation of the decision to close maternity services in Friarage hospital?

William Hague: As the hon. Gentleman knows, that decision has been determined by the independent reconfiguration panel and the Secretary of State has accepted its advice. That is what it is for—it is independent. This is the end of a long battle on that particular issue and all of us who were involved have had to accept that. I think that in all such cases the Secretary of State takes its advice. It is very important that there is a strong future for Friarage hospital in Northallerton. We are getting into constituency matters here, but I would encourage the clinical commissioning group and South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust to set out a very strong and ambitious future for that hospital.

Ian Mearns: I welcome the Leader of the House to his position. Given the location of his very scenic and beautiful constituency, he may be aware of the importance of transport infrastructure expenditure on the prospects for local economies. Given that Northern Rail and Network Rail do not have an investment programme in the next five-year control period for anywhere north of York, may we have a debate on the importance of transport infrastructure expenditure in generating economies, particularly in places like the north-east of England?

William Hague: These are, of course, very important issues. It is one of a long list of issues on which hon. Members have asked for debates today. It is evident to
	the House that it is not possible to agree to debates on all of those subjects. The hon. Gentleman gives his opinion. It is also true that the Government are investing more in the roads than at any time since the 1970s, and, with HS2, more in rail than at any time since Victorian times. Important announcements about transport infrastructure across the north of England have been made recently by the Chancellor and the Transport Secretary, so it is important to have a look at those.

Mr Speaker: I think I can speak for the whole House in saying that we are extremely grateful to the Leader of the House and to colleagues for an invigorating and therapeutic series of exchanges.

Hallett Review

Theresa Villiers: With permission, I would like to make a statement on the report by Lady Justice Hallett, which is being published today, on the scheme dealing with the so-called “on-the-runs”.
	In February, Mr Justice Sweeney ruled that it would be an abuse of process to proceed with the prosecution of John Downey in connection with the Hyde park bombing on 20 July 1982, and the trial was stayed. The Hyde park atrocity resulted in the brutal murder of four members of the Blues and Royals. Seven horses were also killed. Just hours later, another bomb in Regent’s park took the lives of seven members of the Royal Green Jackets. These were appalling terrorist outrages, carried out by the Provisional IRA, for which there could never ever be any justification. So I hope our first thoughts in the House today are with the families and friends of those murdered that day in July 1982. The Government fully appreciate the deep sense of hurt and anger that the collapse of the Downey trial has caused both to them and to victims of terrorism more widely. I would like to repeat the apology I gave in March for what has happened. The Government are profoundly sorry for the hurt this case has caused to all victims of terrorism.
	The Downey case highlighted the administrative scheme introduced by the previous Government to deal with so-called on-the-runs. These were people who had left Northern Ireland and believed that if they returned to any part of the UK, they might be arrested in connection with terrorist offences. The Government responded to the widespread public concern expressed about the OTR scheme by establishing a judge-led, independent review of it. I am very grateful to Lady Justice Hallett for taking on that task. Anybody reading the report will be left in no doubt that she has provided us with a rigorous and comprehensive account of the scheme. The Government accept the report and all its recommendations in full.
	On the central issue of whether the OTR administrative scheme gave suspected terrorists immunity from prosecution, Lady Justice Hallett is very clear. She concludes:
	“The administrative scheme did not amount to an amnesty for terrorists…Suspected terrorists were not handed a ‘get out of jail free’ card”.
	The Government have always been clear that if sufficient evidence emerges, individual OTRs are liable for arrest and prosecution in the normal way. So I repeat today to the people holding those letters: they will not protect you from arrest or prosecution, and should the police succeed in gathering sufficient evidence, you will be subject to the due process of law. Lady Justice Hallett sets out the origins, operation and evolution of the scheme. She agrees with successive Attorneys-General that the scheme was lawful. The last letter sent by the Northern Ireland Office was issued in December 2012, and I repeat today that, as far as this Government are concerned, the scheme is over.
	The report sets out a number of serious criticisms of how the scheme operated, including significant systemic failures. Lady Justice Hallett states:
	“The scheme was not designed; it evolved. As a result there was no overall policy and no overall responsibility/accountability for it”.
	She says that the scheme
	“lacked proper lines of responsibility, accountability and safeguards…When errors came to light opportunities were missed to rectify them…There was no risk assessment”.
	In the case of Mr Downey, Lady Justice Hallett concluded, in line with the Sweeney judgment, that it was not the fact that Mr Downey was sent a letter that caused the trial to collapse, but the fact that the letter contained an incorrect and misleading statement, on which Mr Downey then relied. The report finds that if the scheme had been properly administered,
	“John Downey would not have received a letter of assurance”.
	She concludes that she can find no “logical explanation” of why Police Service of Northern Ireland officers failed to pass on the fact that Mr Downey was still wanted by the Metropolitan police or why they failed to correct the error once it became known.
	Lady Justice Hallett finds that 13 OTRs received the royal prerogative of mercy between 2000 and 2002, and that in all cases this was to release people from having to serve some or all of the rest of their sentences. No pre-conviction pardons were issued. The report criticises the lack of a
	“central register of documents recording the use of the RPM”.
	While she finds
	“no evidence of the UK Government actively seeking to obscure the scheme from the public,”
	Lady Justice Hallett states that it
	“was not given much publicity and that important groups”
	such as victims and their families “remained unaware” of it. The report acknowledges the great hurt and distress that this has caused to many victims. Lady Justice Hallett has found two examples of somebody receiving a letter in error, in addition to the Downey case. She has also identified 36 cases dealt with between February 2007 and November 2008 that she believes should be given priority in the exercise now under way by the PSNI to check whether the change in status from wanted to not wanted can still be justified.
	The key question that has arisen is what the Government intend to do next to ensure that there are no more failed prosecutions like that of Mr Downey.
	The report recommends that we now
	“seek legal advice, in conjunction with the police and prosecuting authorities, to determine whether”
	we
	“should notify any individuals whose status, as communicated to them, has changed or may change in the future”
	and that we
	“consider how to mitigate against further abuse of process arguments, for example by confirming to recipients the factual and contemporaneous nature of their letters”.
	The Government will act on these and all Lady Justice Hallett’s recommendations, and I give the House this assurance: we will take whatever steps are necessary, acting on the basis of legal advice and in conjunction with the police and prosecutors, to do everything possible to remove barriers to future prosecutions. In taking that forward, I propose to work closely with the devolved Minister of Justice.
	The bulk of the report deals with decisions made by the previous Government in respect of their handling of the political process in Northern Ireland. It is not my role to speak for my Labour predecessors as Secretary of State; they are more than capable of speaking for themselves on the role they played and the decisions they took, and they have addressed the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee on these matters. But I will say this: I might not agree with every decision they made in relation to the OTR issue, but whatever differences of emphasis and approach we might have, I recognise that they were dealing with very difficult judgments in very difficult circumstances and that they were at all times acting with sincerity in seeking to move the peace process forward. I emphasise very clearly that Lady Justice Hallett has found no evidence that either politicians or officials ever interfered improperly with the due process of law or the operational independence of police or prosecutors.
	The report concludes that the scheme did not impact on police investigations into historic terrorist offences. Police Service of Northern Ireland and Historical Enquiries Team files were not closed. There was no chilling effect.
	It is well known that the current Government allowed the checking process to continue after we came to power in May 2010, but both I and my predecessor have been very clear: had we at any time been presented with a scheme that we thought amounted to an amnesty, immunity or exemption from prosecution, we would have stopped it immediately. That would have been consistent with the opposition of both coalition partners to the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill, introduced by the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain) in 2005, which was subsequently abandoned.
	This Government believe in the rule of law, and that applies across the board to everyone, without fear or favour, including those in possession of letters issued under the scheme. There are many lessons to be learned from this episode, not least of which is the crucial importance of continued efforts to find an agreement on the divisive issues of flags, parading and the past.
	On dealing with the painful legacy of Northern Ireland’s past, we need a process that is transparent, accountable and balanced, puts the era of side deals firmly behind us and commands the confidence of all parts of the community in Northern Ireland. The Government remain fully committed to working with all parties in Northern Ireland in their efforts to deliver that important goal, and I commend this statement to the House.

Ivan Lewis: I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement and the tone of her response. Today, as we reflect on the findings of Lady Justice Hallett’s report, it is important above all else that we remember the soldiers who lost their lives in Hyde park on that dreadful day in July 1982 and the suffering that their families continue to endure. That act was heinous and, like all terrorist atrocities, totally unjustifiable. The fact that those families are less likely to get either truth or justice will make that suffering worse. That is why the report was necessary. We have apologised for the catastrophic mistakes made specifically in the Downey case.
	This inquiry is incredibly important for victims of the troubles and also for the wider public, so that we can address both legitimate concerns and frequently repeated falsehoods as we strive to build a better and shared future for Northern Ireland. We welcome Lady Hallett’s report today and accept her findings in full. Lady Hallett had limited time in which to complete her inquiry, but despite the time constraints she met more than 40 individuals and reviewed thousands of documents to prepare today’s report. We acknowledge her findings, including those that made it clear that there should have been a more systematic approach to the operation and ongoing review of the scheme.
	There are lessons to be learned by both the Northern Ireland Office and the Police Service of Northern Ireland. We are of course concerned that there appear to be two other cases in which errors in letters have been identified, and Lady Hallett’s assertion that the PSNI review of cases will take years is also a source of concern. I will return to these points in my questions to the Secretary of State.
	We are pleased that Lady Hallett shattered a number of myths. She makes it clear that the scheme was not unlawful, that files on terrorist offences were not closed by the PSNI and, most importantly, she states categorically on the very first page of her report that this administrative scheme was not an amnesty and nor did it ever amount to a get- out-of-jail-free card. We do not believe amnesty is the right approach to dealing with the past in Northern Ireland.
	On legality, while Lady Hallett questions the structure of the scheme, she makes it clear on page 144 of the report that the administrative scheme was not unlawful. Furthermore, she goes on to say that
	“the Downey ruling is confined to its own facts and is not binding on any other judge.”
	On amnesty, Lady Hallett makes it clear on page 28
	“that there was no question of the administrative scheme granting an alleged offender an amnesty or immunity from prosecution. It is clear from the views expressed at the time that the Attorney-General would not have agreed to the process had that been the intention or the effect. It is also clear that successive Attorneys-General maintained the same position throughout the life of the scheme.”
	Finally, while Justice Hallett is right to conclude that the scheme was not secret, I acknowledge the concern of politicians and others who feel they should have been given more information about the nature and application of the scheme. This includes the First Minister and Justice Minister after the devolution of policing and justice in 2010.
	I have a number of questions for the Secretary of State. On page 142, Lady Hallett identifies two further cases where letters issued might have contained errors. Can she update the House on these two cases and inform us what steps have been taken on each? Can she update us on the other inquiries commissioned back in February: the police ombudsman inquiry and the PSNI inquiry? Lady Hallett mentions these in her report and she expects the PSNI review to take “years”. Can the Secretary of State reassure us that the PSNI will be provided with the necessary resources to deliver a full and thorough process that can be concluded in a much shorter time scale?
	The Secretary of State will agree that this issue of on-the-runs has opened up wider questions surrounding the use of the royal prerogative of mercy. Lady Hallett mentions on page 143 that she has
	“identified no cases where the RPM was used as a pre-conviction pardon for an OTR”
	on the lists that she held. Can the Secretary of State update the House on the ongoing investigation about those records that have gone missing from her Department pre-1997?
	Finally, and perhaps most crucially, does the Secretary of State now accept that this report reinforces rather than undermines the urgent need for a robust, transparent and comprehensive process to deal with Northern Ireland’s past? It is now clear that the UK and Irish Governments must take a far more hands-on role in supporting Northern Ireland’s political parties to reach agreement both on the past and on parades. Until this happens, one can conclude only that stalemate will prevail, leaving a dangerous vacuum that is being filled by those who seek to undermine the peace process either through political means or, worse still, a return to violence.
	As the Prime Minister has said, it would be wrong to be retrospectively selective about key elements of an historic peace process that ended 30 years of violence and terror. It was an extraordinary period, which demanded historic and difficult compromises. However, as a result of that momentous agreement, Northern Ireland has been transformed, and at grassroots level, there are numerous heart-warming examples of reconciliation and normalisation across communities. These changes should never be underestimated or taken for granted.
	This remarkable progress did not happen by accident or simply through the passage of time. It would never have been possible without the courageous and visionary leadership of people like David Trimble and John Hume, without the huge risks taken by Gerry Adams and Martin McGuiness in renouncing violence and accepting that the constitutional status of Northern Ireland would only ever change with the consent of the people, or without Ian Paisley Senior’s willingness to reconcile long-standing, deeply held convictions with the democratic will of the people—a position that has been taken forward by Peter Robinson. It never would have happened, of course, without the contributions of many others in Northern Ireland, including right hon. and hon. Members in their places in this Chamber today, who allowed hope to triumph over fear.
	I have to say that it would never have happened without the intensive engagement of the UK and Irish Governments working together. In a UK context, John Major deserves credit for starting the process, but what was decisive was Tony Blair’s decision to expend unprecedented prime ministerial capital on achieving peace in Northern Ireland. He was supported, of course, by the extraordinary Mo Mowlam and ultra-professional Jonathan Powell, not to mention successive Secretaries of State and junior Ministers such as the late Paul Goggins, whose memorial service last night was a truly fitting tribute to a very special parliamentarian.
	I have to make this point because some would like to use the controversy generated by the on-the-runs as a stick with which to beat Tony Blair and to allow legitimate public concern to distort the truth about a peace process lauded around the world. This peace process, of course,
	was not a perfect one—there is no such thing—but it is a peace process of which I and my party remain incredibly proud. It has saved lives and allowed the current younger generation in Northern Ireland to grow up largely free from the fear and reality of violence. Let me be clear, Mr Speaker, that this is unlikely to have happened without Tony Blair and his Government. I end by echoing the Secretary of State’s thanks to Lady Justice Hallett for her comprehensive report.

Theresa Villiers: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I thank the shadow Secretary of State for the seriousness and comprehensiveness of his remarks. I know he will take it in the right spirit if I say that a pressing priority for him at the start of the summer recess will be to get his watch repaired.

Theresa Villiers: I agree with the shadow Secretary of State that this is an important opportunity to remember the victims of the Hyde Park bomb. I think it would be appropriate to read out their names. Those murdered were Lieutenant Anthony Daly, aged 23; Trooper Simon Tipper, aged 19 who died at the scene; Lance-Corporal Geoffrey Young, aged 19 who died the following day; and Squadron Quartermaster Corporal Raymond Bright, aged 36 who died two days after that. A total of 31 other people were injured, a number of them very seriously.
	I welcome much of what the shadow Secretary of State said. I think it was appropriate for him to issue the apology that he did. I, too, apologise in clear terms to the Justice Minister and the First Minister for not briefing them on the scheme. It is a concern that the scheme operated in a way that was not as transparent as it should have been, which is one reason why the hurt was caused and why there has been such a great deal of misunderstanding about what the scheme actually involved. That is why I offered that apology, which I repeat today, for not briefing Ministers in the Executive on these matters.
	I welcome the fact that the Hallett report shatters myths, as the hon. Member for Bury South (Mr Lewis) said. It emphasises that the scheme was not an amnesty and points out that the Downey ruling depends on its facts and would not necessarily provide a precedent for other cases.
	The hon. Gentleman asked me to comment on the two cases in which errors occurred. I reiterate that the Government will follow the advice of the recommendations and work with the police, the prosecuting authorities and the Department of Justice to do everything we can to ensure that errors are corrected and that any barriers to future prosecution are removed. In that regard, I draw attention to paragraph 10.72 in which Lady Justice Hallett comments on the gravity of the mistake and the serious consequences it had for the Hyde Park families. She goes on to say:
	“Other mistakes have been made and need correcting. But this can be done in a measured and proportionate way.”
	At this stage, it would probably be unwise to comment on the specifics of the cases because it would be the worst possible outcome if anything were said in Parliament to jeopardise future prosecutions in these cases.
	The ombudsman and PSNI investigations are independent matters for them, but I have been in close touch with the Chief Constable and know that the
	PSNI is very much aware of the content of the Hallett report and the mistakes identified. I know, too, that it is taking very seriously the exercise of checking all the cases that went through the scheme. In Northern Ireland questions we discussed concerns about the resources available to the PSNI. I hope these matters will be given the priority they deserve.
	The shadow Secretary of State asked wider questions about the RPM. I can confirm that no pre-conviction pardons were issued. The investigation of the records for 1987 to 1997 is continuing. Our conclusion is that, in all likelihood, no central list of RPMs issued during that period was compiled. I am afraid that it may be a case not of a missing document, but of the fact that a document was not compiled in the first place, and that records of the RPMs were kept in the individual cases of the prisoners concerned and were destroyed according to normal routine records management.
	I agree with the shadow Secretary of State that this episode reinforces the need for progress on agreeing a process for dealing with Northern Ireland’s past. I hope that the Hallett report will provide an opportunity for all the parties to return to the table and the debates on flags, parading and the past, and that an agreed way forward on these important matters can be found.

Owen Paterson: I welcome both the statement and Lady Justice Hallett’s report. I confirm emphatically, as did Lady Justice Hallett, that if we had felt when we took power in May 2010 that there was a whiff or a hint that an amnesty might have been involved, we would have stopped the scheme immediately. A small number of cases remained, and I was content that there was no question at all of an amnesty. I am very pleased to learn that Lady Justice Hallett has confirmed that.
	I think that today is the day on which we should remember the victims. More than 3,500 people were killed. Will the Secretary of State please confirm that police and law enforcement authorities throughout the United Kingdom will continue to pursue the perpetrators of many of these terrible crimes, in order to bring some satisfaction to the relatives of the victims that they will be brought to justice?

Theresa Villiers: I commend my right hon. Friend for all the brilliant work that he did as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. What he has said is absolutely right.
	I hope that Lady Justice Hallett’s report will reassure victims of terrorism that there were no get-out-of-jail-free cards. This was not an amnesty, and if we had inherited a scheme that involved such an amnesty, we would of course have rejected it, as we rejected the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill. It is, indeed, crucial that police services the length and breadth of the land are rigorous in their pursuit of terrorists, and rigorous in their pursuit of justice for all who have suffered at their hands.

Peter Hain: Does the Secretary of State agree that this exemplary report demonstrates to the victims who have suffered, and continue to suffer so much, that the scheme was not unlawful, was not an amnesty, and was not a get-out-of-jail-free card, that it did not offer immunity from prosecution, that no Minister involved misled anyone, and that although the scheme was sensitive, it was not secret?
	May I put it directly to the Secretary of State that she has a responsibility to take this process forward, to learn from the report, and to bring all the parties together? That cannot be left simply to the Northern Ireland parties. Both the British Government and the Irish Government need to move forward, together with the parties, and address this past which continues to haunt Northern Ireland and all the victims who have suffered.

Theresa Villiers: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s praise for the report. As I have said, I think that there are concerns about the disclosure relating to the scheme; I think that it would have been far better if I, and my predecessors, had been more transparent about the way in which it operated. However, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is important for us to revive the all-party talks, and for the parties to get round the table again to discuss the crucial issues of flags, parading and the past. We need to learn from the report.
	I can, of course, give the right hon. Gentleman a complete assurance that the United Kingdom Government remain committed to doing all that they can to support the Northern Ireland parties in their efforts on these matters, and that we are working closely with our colleagues in Dublin, who share our determination to do everything possible to facilitate and support an agreement on the past.

Laurence Robertson: I thank the Secretary of State for giving me early sight of the report. When we look below the headlines, we see that it is very critical of what went on. Lady Justice Hallett refers to evidence given to the Select Committee by Assistant Chief Constable Drew Harris, who said that “95 of these individuals”—those who had received letters—
	“are linked in some way or other to 200 murder investigations.”
	He later corrected that figure to 295. He added:
	“But that linkage may only be intelligence.”
	Given the possibility that that intelligence could turn into evidence relating to any of those people, it is rather worrying that Lady Justice Hallett says:
	“It is not clear to me…what would happen if fresh evidence should come to light. It is arguable…that this does not sufficiently provide for a change in circumstances.”
	Have not this scheme and the way in which it has been run created a very worrying situation in Northern Ireland in respect of bringing people to justice and bringing closure to the victims whom we rightly remember today?

Theresa Villiers: The Chairman of the Select Committee is absolutely right. The report makes some very serious criticisms of the way in which the scheme was operated, and those will have difficult consequences that will need to be dealt with. However, I assure the House that the Government are determined that they will be dealt with. Lady Justice Hallett concluded that the errors could be corrected, and we will do everything in our power to ensure that they are corrected, acting on the basis of advice from lawyers, prosecutors and police.
	My hon. Friend has drawn attention to concern about the terms of the caveats that were placed in the letters. Lady Justice Hallett is very clear about the fact
	that insufficient consideration was given to them. In some cases, they were left out altogether. My colleagues and I will be looking into that carefully to establish what, if anything, needs to be done to ensure that the errors that my hon. Friend has highlighted are corrected.

Shaun Woodward: I, too, thank the right hon. Lady for advance sight of the report, and join her in remembering not only the victims of the Hyde Park bombing, but all the people to whom the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) referred who lost their lives in the course of the troubles. I also thank Lady Justice Hallett for a very comprehensive report. As a former Secretary of State, I accept all the findings, observations and criticisms contained in it.
	There are important things that we need to learn. I have three brief questions to ask the right hon. Lady, in the light of chapter 9 of the report. First, does she accept that the Northern Ireland Office still has responsibility for the scheme, and that it was not devolved? Secondly, does her statement that the scheme is now closed mean that the letters—as Lady Justice Hallett asked—have been rescinded or have not been rescinded? Thirdly, given that the right hon. Lady has made clear today that the scheme has been closed—which I do not think Lady Justice Hallett fully appreciated—will she now tell us where that leaves the cases that were still under review?

Theresa Villiers: The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the scheme was devolved. As I have said in the House on many occasions, in August 2012 my predecessor and the then Attorney-General decided that it would not be appropriate for the Northern Ireland Office to accept any new cases, and that any fresh cases should be referred by Sinn Fein to devolved police and prosecuting authorities.
	A debate has raged on the exact position of the scheme in terms of devolution. I discussed the matter with the Secretary of State for Justice this morning. I think that the best way of putting it is that the Northern Ireland Office will not shirk its responsibilities in learning from these mistakes, correcting any errors, and taking any appropriate action that is needed to remove barriers to prosecution. We will do that in partnership with the Ministry of Justice, and respecting the devolution settlement. Exactly who does what and how it is done will be a matter for reflection in the coming days, and I will undoubtedly update the House in due course.
	As for the closure of the scheme, I announced some months ago that it was closed. The Government will not be issuing any fresh “not wanted” indications. As I have made clear today, what we will do is play our part in correcting any mistakes and ensuring that everything that possibly can be done is done to remove any future barriers to prosecutions in other cases.

Andrew Robathan: On a personal note, I knew Anthony Daly. One can only imagine the pain that the Downey case has caused his family, and the families of the others who were murdered in Hyde park and Regent’s park. I very much regret the judgment of Mr Justice Sweeney, and I join those such as Lord Pannick, the distinguished jurist, who believe that the interests of justice should have trumped the
	mistake made by the police. Indeed, the allegations made against Downey were so serious that to all laymen such as myself, the judgment was extraordinary. On the subject of the OTR scheme, does my right hon. Friend believe that although the scheme was not secret, it was nevertheless deliberately obscured from public view and kept out of the public domain by the previous Government?

Theresa Villiers: Lady Justice Hallett found no evidence that it was deliberately obscured but, as I have said, it would have been far better if both Governments involved in the scheme had been more transparent about the way in which it operated. If we had been, we would not have faced the misunderstanding, the hurt and the upset that have been triggered as a result of the Downey judgment. It is important that we learn lessons from that lack of transparency and ensure that any future process on the past that is agreed is transparent and accountable.

Nigel Dodds: I want to thank Lady Justice Hallett for her work on producing the report, which was asked for by the First Minister of Northern Ireland. With this statement being made in Parliament, our thoughts should be with the victims of the Hyde park bombing, first and foremost, and with the families of the victims of all terrorism in Northern Ireland. This was a shameful episode in the history of the so-called peace process. The grubby deal that was done between the Blair Government and Sinn Fein, the republican movement, is one of the worst examples of political chicanery that we have come across. There was no parliamentary or public approval, and at times Parliament was deliberately misled.
	Lady Justice Hallett has concluded that there was no general amnesty. Certainly as far as our party and the other parties in Northern Ireland are concerned, there is no question of any amnesty, immunity or exemption from prosecution being acceptable, whether through legislation or by the back door. However, for John Downey—and, it now appears, two others—the fact was that there was an amnesty. The question now arises as to what the Government are going to do. I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has said that the Government “will take whatever steps are necessary, acting on the basis of legal advice…to do everything possible to remove barriers to future prosecutions.” That is in line with her statement on 28 February that:
	“We will take whatever steps that are necessary to make clear…that any letters issued cannot be relied upon to avoid questioning or prosecution”.—[Official Report, 28 February 2014; Vol. 576, c. 39WS.]
	Can she give us a timetable, and will she assure us that if legislation is necessary, she will introduce it? Will she tell us whether there will be opportunities to question the former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, on his role in this? Will she also tell us what further steps can be taken on transparency in regard to the names of those who received a royal prerogative of mercy and of those who received comfort letters?

Theresa Villiers: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s offer of sympathy to all the victims of terrorism. As the representative of a constituency that was, sadly, the site of many horrific murders during the troubles, he is well placed to understand the pain that has been caused to those victims. I acknowledge that his party has always made it extremely clear that no amnesty would ever be
	acceptable, and I entirely support that position. As I have said, Heather Hallett’s report has confirmed today that there was no “get out of jail free” card. We will act as swiftly as we can to remove barriers to prosecution but, reflecting on the report’s findings, we should be under no illusions as to the legal complexities and sensitivities involved. We certainly do not want to repeat the mistakes of the past by acting in an over-hasty manner. We will keep in close touch with the Police Service of Northern Ireland on these matters, while always respecting its operational independence.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked whether there would be an opportunity to question the former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, on these matters. That is really a matter for him and for the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. On the publication of names, I have said throughout the debate on OTRs that I did not believe that such publication would be appropriate. There are many legal and privacy concerns involved, as well as questions relating to article 2, which is why I am not proposing to publish any names relating to either RPMs or OTRs.

Nigel Mills: In her statement, the Secretary of State said that we needed a process that is “transparent, accountable and balanced”. I hope that she would agree that this scheme was none of those. We have an open justice system and we generally know who is being arrested, charged, prosecuted and acquitted. It is not clear to me why we should not know who felt the need to seek one of those letters. If we believe in a transparent system, we should be able to find out who has received one.

Theresa Villiers: I understand my hon. Friend’s perspective. There are probably many reasons why people put their names forward. Something that comes across clearly in the report is that a number of the individuals concerned were not known to the PSNI at all. I will reflect on what he has said, but I continue to believe that it would not be helpful to name the individuals who were processed through the scheme. In all other respects, however, we need to be as transparent as we can about the steps we will take to remedy the serious errors identified by Heather Hallett, and we need to do all we can to learn from them.

Alasdair McDonnell: This whole sad Downey saga is riddled with ambiguity, limited information and half-truths, with no thought or respect for the victims. We built a hard-won peace process on truth and honesty, and a very welcome political process flowed from it. All parallel issues and discussions need to be open and transparent. This sad saga brings us back to one salient point that must be made again and again: we have neglected to deal adequately with the past and with the many issues that arise from our difficult history between 1970 and 1998. We are all guilty in this regard. The legacy of the past—the mistakes, the crimes, the murders and the maimings—hangs over us like a massive alpine glacier, and it leaves behind thousands of victims.
	Does the Secretary of State accept that, unless the problems of the past are faced up to honestly and transparently and in an accountable and balanced way, they will continue to break off bit by bit and threaten us on a regular basis, month by month, disrupting lives
	and reopening old wounds? Will she and the Government commit to helping those of us who are working to complete the Haass process, in which dealing with the past is a major issue? Will they commit to ensuring honestly and transparently, and in a balanced way, that we deal with the past and, having dealt with it honourably, we begin to face the future with confidence? Will they ensure that the past is properly and completely finished with and put behind us?

Theresa Villiers: The hon. Gentleman puts the case for an attempt to resolve the issues of the past with great clarity. I fully agree that the legacy of Northern Ireland’s past is a recurrent issue that has the capacity to poison the political debate and to create a block to genuine reconciliation. I therefore strongly agree that, for the sake of peace and prosperity in Northern Ireland, it is essential that we find an agreed way forward and come to terms with the legacy of the past. I can give him the same assurance that he received from the Prime Minister in his meeting with him yesterday—namely, that this Government are fully committed to doing that and that we will play our part in any agreement between the Northern Ireland parties. We will continue to do everything we can to facilitate an agreement between those parties on these important matters.

Philip Hollobone: Presumably Lady Justice Hallett’s report will be discussed at tomorrow’s Cabinet. This whole on-the-run episode is deeply troubling, but it is also an extraordinary and exceptional set of circumstances. Given the horrific nature of the Hyde park bombing, and the subsequent publication of the report, the question my constituents will want me to ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is this: in the light of the report, is there now no chance at all that the stay on the prosecution of John Downey can be lifted?

Theresa Villiers: I am afraid the legal advice is that it is almost impossible for circumstances to arise where that stay could be lifted, so I am afraid that decision is irreversible. My hon. Friend is right to characterise this as an extraordinary scheme—that is how it was characterised by Lady Hallett. What I would emphasise is the point made by almost all hon. Members: this was not an amnesty. In describing what it was, I could do no better than use the terms summarised by Lord Reid, who said that this was a scheme to inform
	“people who were not wanted”—
	for arrest by the police—
	“that they were not wanted”
	for arrest by the police. It was not a scheme to send letters of comfort to people who genuinely were wanted.

Ian Paisley Jnr: Does the Secretary of State agree that it would be a travesty heaped upon an injustice if a single police officer was to be made a scapegoat for this error while Tony Blair was to be elevated to near sainthood by some people? Does she agree that the systemic failures identified in this report clearly show that the Northern Ireland Office made significant errors in the management of all this? Will she go further and recognise that the entire OTR scheme was a gross insult to victims? Pages 204 and 210 of the
	report contain two lists with redacted names on them. Given that Gerry Adams’ personal solicitor was not able to confirm or deny whether Gerry Adams is in receipt of one of these letters, does the Secretary of State consider it appropriate that if a political leader is in receipt of one of these letters, she should inform this House?

Theresa Villiers: On the last point, I only reiterate that I have no plans to publish the names of the individuals concerned, for the reasons I gave before. I have a lot of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of the position of the PSNI officers. The report is very clear that there were significant systemic failings in the way the NIO at the time ran the scheme. It was certainly well intentioned, and I think civil servants made strenuous efforts to act appropriately, but the reality is that at a senior level—Ministers at the time will of course take responsibility for this—as the Hallett report makes clear, the scheme was not gripped properly, the risks were not assessed properly, and there were opportunities to identify errors and correct them but those were not taken. All of that means it would be wrong to characterise the result of the Downey case as just being down to the actions of an individual PSNI officer. If the scheme had been run in an appropriate way, it is highly likely that those facts would never have arisen in the first place. That of course is a matter for which all those Ministers in office at the time will take responsibility.

Kate Hoey: The Hallett report is, of course, comprehensive, but there is something wrong with it: everything was held in secret. Once again, the victims really do not know what people said; they do not know what Gerry Kelly said or what Gerry Adams said, and they are left in the dark. The Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs is carrying out its own inquiry and we took interesting evidence, given in public, about the push for and the pressure on the police to get these letters out—that came from somewhere. Lady Justice Hallett says that the scheme
	“lacked proper lines of responsibility, accountability and safeguards”.
	Surely the real responsibility for all this—whatever he did in terms of getting the peace process—must lie at the very heart of government, with the letters that were coming from the then Prime Minister to Gerry Adams saying, “We are going to sort this.”

Theresa Villiers: As I say, the ultimate responsibility for the scheme has to lie at a political level; civil servants, at all times, were working to a remit approved by Secretaries of State. That is very clear from the report, and it is important that responsibility is taken. On the public taking of evidence, the hon. Lady is a member of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, which has had a number of hearings on these matters. They have been helpful in throwing further light on the matters set out in the Hallett report, and indeed it is clear from the report that Justice Hallett has relied on a number of the NIAC evidence sessions.

David Simpson: The judge has said in her report that the letters were not an amnesty or a “get out of jail free” card, but she fails to call this what it was. My right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) hit on it: it was a dirty, grubby deal
	to place republicans, with total disregard for victims. No matter how we paint this up, that is exactly what it was. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is a travesty of justice that, according to evidence that NIAC has received, 95 of those letters went out to individuals responsible for more than 295 murders? The victims are left weeping because, in all honesty, they probably will not get any justice.

Theresa Villiers: I am of course aware of Drew Harris’s evidence to NIAC, but what he said was that there was an intelligence connection between these individuals and a number of terrorist crimes. That of course is not the same as saying that there was evidence sufficient to arrest and it is certainly not the same as saying that there was evidence sufficient to mount a prosecution. So it is important for victims to understand that in these cases where the scheme was operating correctly it was only sending letters to people about whom there was insufficient evidence to justify an arrest. I suppose the other reassurance I can try to give the hon. Gentleman—he and his party are very clear on their views about this scheme—is that the report is very clear that this did not stop police investigations, files were not closed as a result of the OTR scheme and the boundaries were not crossed in relation to political interference; neither politicians nor officials interfered inappropriately with the administration of justice.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I am very keen to ensure that all hon. Members get to participate in this statement. I appreciate that the Secretary of State is giving very full answers. May I gently suggest slightly clipped and crisp questions, and crisp answers, as we do have quite a lot of business that we need to move on to?

Mark Durkan: Does the Secretary of State recognise that although Lady Justice Hallett makes it clear at the start of her report that it is not a whitewash, it does leave a couple of black boxes in respect of Operation Rapid, not least the fact that there is little explanation as to why during that period so many cases on the list went from being “wanted” to being “not wanted”? Justice Hallett gave an assurance that there was no chilling effect, but why then the frozen response on the part of the PSNI whenever it clearly realised that mistakes were made in respect to the Downey letter and why the frozen response whenever the Historical Enquiries Team indicated that it had identified possible evidence in relation to Mr Downey and offences in Northern Ireland?

Theresa Villiers: The hon. Gentleman rightly says that there is further work to be done—there is no doubt about that. One important aspect of that work is the police investigation of all of these cases to check whether the “not wanted” judgment was the correct one. The reason Justice Hallett has selected 36 cases as a priority for that investigation is that she believes the police might have been applying the wrong threshold to decide whether an individual was wanted or not wanted. Clearly, therefore, it will be very important to look carefully at those cases, and I am sure the PSNI will do so.

William McCrea: The dirty deal done between the previous Government and Sinn Fein was underhand, and an insult to victims and to all democrats in Northern Ireland. Does the Secretary of State therefore accept that a deep hurt is felt by victims and that the only way to ensure it does not continue is by ensuring that these letters are withdrawn?

Theresa Villiers: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I will take whatever steps are necessary to remove barriers to prosecution, based on the advice I am given by police and prosecutors. We will do everything possible to ensure that we do not see a repeat of the collapse of the Downey trial in another instance.

Sammy Wilson: The report makes it quite clear on the cover-up of this scheme that the authors and indeed the former Prime Minister and Secretary of State—appallingly—made representations about murderers not being prosecuted. The least we could have expected from the shadow Secretary of State today was an apology, instead of which we got a brazen defence. The Minister has at least apologised for the way in which the scheme was administered, for the ambiguity, and for the fact that the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive were not informed. Will she now go further and assure us not only that will cases be left open but that she will be request from the police that everyone who has been issued with a letter will have their case reinvestigated, that new intelligence will be sought and that new investigative channels will be looked at so at least the victims can be sure that those who have received these letters will not be able to live in comfort for the rest of their lives?

Theresa Villiers: Let me take this opportunity to repeat the apology that I gave for the lack of transparency and the failure to discuss this scheme. I repeat my concerns about the way in which this scheme as a whole was run, including under my predecessors. I think that has been the cause of much of the distress to victims. The hon. Gentleman asks about the exact steps that will be taken to ensure that errors are corrected and problematic cases dealt with. I counsel against statements of that sort at this stage. We need to be careful to ensure that there is nothing that could be said in haste, which might end up hindering rather than helping a future prosecution. As soon as I am able, I will give further information on how we intend to implement the recommendations. Today, we need to be careful about commenting on specific cases and how they will be dealt with.

Margaret Ritchie: I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. We must never forget the victims and the survivors who have suffered. This whole sorry debacle has left a sour taste in the mouths of many people throughout Northern Ireland. Will the Secretary of State confirm that there must be a redoubling of efforts to get back to the talks table to discuss those outstanding issues of the past—parading and flags—and will she confirm that she will come back to this House to explain how she intends to implement those recommendations from Hallett?

Theresa Villiers: I am certainly happy to come back to the House to discuss the implementation of the Hallett recommendations. The hon. Lady will know that I fully
	support the all-party talks and agree on the importance of their resumption. She will also know that the Prime Minister shares that view, because she will have heard that in her conversation with him yesterday.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: Three of the people proposed for this scheme were proposed by the Garda Siochana. Will the Secretary of State explain how the Irish police service was aware of this scheme, yet Ministers in the Northern Ireland Government were not? Secondly, I understand that up to 15 names were proposed by the Northern Ireland Prison Service. Will she explain the role of the prison service in relation to this scheme, what officials were involved and how they will be held to account?

Theresa Villiers: As regards the names that came from the Irish Government, the Irish Government were involved at various points in the peace process on a number of matters, including this one. As I have said, I regret that Executive Ministers were not briefed at the time. On the prison service, it is not entirely clear how that came about, but it seems that the prison service had a number of individuals on its files who had escaped from prison, and the reason they ended up on the OTR scheme was to establish whether they needed to be sought for a return to prison. It was to clarify the position for the prison service.

Dawn Primarolo: Last but not least, Jim Shannon.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Secretary of State for her statement and her comments that she would have stopped it immediately if she had known. I am conscious of the victims; those are the people I think about. Kenneth Smith, an Ulster Defence Regiment sergeant, was killed on 10 December 1971. His killers escaped across the border. The IRA killer of Lexie Cummings walked out of court and straight across the border and has not returned. Four UDR men were killed at Ballydugan. Eight people were arrested, but none was charged. Some of those are now across the border. The murderers in the La Mon massacre at Castlereagh have also skipped across the border and have risen to prominence in business and political life in the Republic of Ireland. Will the Secretary of State tell us when she will have discussions with the Prime Minister in the Republic of Ireland to ensure that the investigations that will take place in Northern Ireland will mean that those down south who think they have escaped will be apprehended and made accountable?

Theresa Villiers: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that, contrary to the position in the past, decisions on extradition are now taken by independent police and prosecuting authorities. On that basis, it would be inappropriate of me to raise specific cases with the Government of the Republic of Ireland.

“A New Magna Carta?”
	 — 
	Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform

Select Committee statement

Dawn Primarolo: We now come to the first of two Select Committee statements, which will be moved by Mr Fabian Hamilton. He will make the first statement on behalf of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, which will last for no more than 10 minutes, during which there will be no interventions. At the conclusion of his statement, I will call Members to put questions on its subject. Members can expect to be called only once. Interventions should be questions and should be brief. Front Benchers may take part in the questioning.

Fabian Hamilton: Before I begin the statement, I should like to give the apologies of the Chair of the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), who is unable to be with us this afternoon. I pay tribute to his extraordinary work on this massive report, “A New Magna Carta?”, and thank the staff of the Committee, the Clerks and the other staff for all the efforts they have put into this four-year work.
	Last Thursday, right next to the Magna Carta in the British Library, the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee launched its new report on whether the UK’s constitution should be codified. The report marks the end of an innovative four-year inquiry that has involved the Committee working closely with King's college, University of London.
	The United Kingdom is one of the very few democratic countries in the world without a codified constitution. As the Cabinet Manual notes:
	“There is no single document that describes, establishes or regulates the structures of the state and the way in which these relate to the people. Instead, the constitutional order has evolved over time and continues to do so.”
	Among other democracies, only Israel and New Zealand do not have codified or written constitutions.
	We are living through a period of considerable political change. Significant developments in recent decades have included devolution in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; the removal of 90% of hereditary peers from the House of Lords; freedom of information legislation; the establishment of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom; the introduction of fixed-term Parliaments; and the entrenchment of human rights in our domestic legal system. At the same time, some existing constitutional arrangements have been written down in publicly available documents such as the ministerial code and the civil service code. But these changes have been piecemeal, so, at the beginning of the 2010 Parliament, the Political and Constitutional
	Reform Committee decided that the time was right to begin a comprehensive evaluation of the United Kingdom’s constitutional arrangements.
	The Committee launched its inquiry in September 2010. From the beginning, we knew that this would be an ambitious and unusual Select Committee inquiry,
	which would be conducted over several years. It has involved working collaboratively with an academic partner, King’s college London, which has produced for us, among other things, an outline of the arguments for and against codification, a paper setting out the process that could be adopted in the preparation, design and implementation of a codified constitution, and three examples of what a codified constitution could look like: a non-legal code, a consolidation act, and a fully fledged written constitution. The Select Committee has published all that research, as well as a fully fledged written constitution, alongside our report.
	When it comes to arguments in favour of a codified constitution, the King’s college London research points to the fact that the United Kingdom has a “sprawling mass” of common law, Acts of Parliament and European treaty obligations, and a number of important but uncertain and unwritten conventions that govern administration, but the full picture is unclear and uncertain to electors in our democracy. The research also points to concerns about an “elective dictatorship” and argues that it has
	“become too easy for governments to implement political and constitutional reforms to suit their own political convenience”.
	A written constitution would entrench requirements for popular and parliamentary consent, because the present unwritten constitution is
	“an anachronism riddled with references to our ancient past, unsuited to the social and political democracy of the 21st century and future aspirations of its people. It fails to give primacy to the sovereignty of the people and discourages popular participation in the political process.”
	Conversely, the case made against a written constitution in the King’s college research is that it is unnecessary, undesirable and even un-British. The UK’s unwritten constitution is evolutionary and flexible in nature, enabling practical problems to be resolved as they arise and individual reforms made. The research points to concerns that a written constitution would create more litigation in the courts and politicise the judiciary, requiring them to pass judgment on the constitutionality of Government legislation, when the final word on legal matters should rightly lie with elected politicians in Parliament and not unelected judges. There is the simple argument that there are so many practical problems in preparing and enacting a written constitution that there is little point in even considering it. There is no real popular support or demand and, especially given the massive amount of time and destabilising effect such a reform would entail, it is a low priority even for those who support the idea.
	The Select Committee deliberately did not take a position for or against a codified constitution, believing that it is for the people of this country to make such a decision. The intention was instead to generate a forward-looking debate alongside the 800th anniversary celebrations of Magna Carta by placing in the public domain the results of our unique, four-year research project. Like Professor Robert Blackburn, who led the research, the Committee believes that a consideration of detailed alternative models, showing how a constitution might be designed and drafted, will inform and advance the debate on the desirability or otherwise of codifying the constitution in one place. There has been a number of attempts to produce an illustrative codified constitution for the United Kingdom or an outline of what such a constitution could contain. What we have published,
	however, represents the most comprehensive attempt so far to provide different detailed models of a codified constitution for comparison and consideration.
	The publication of the report marks the beginning of a national consultation, running until 1 January 2015, to gather opinions on the future of the United Kingdom’s constitution. The Select Committee has asked anyone who is interested to submit their views on three questions. Does the UK need a codified constitution? If so, which of the options in the report offers the best way forward? What should be included in such a codified constitution? I encourage hon. Members to spread the word about our consultation to their constituents and to respond and share their own views. Details of how to submit responses can be found on the Committee’s website. The Committee intends to report on the views it receives before the next general election.
	At a time of public disillusionment with the political establishment, in particular among young people, it is a good moment to return to fundamentals. There are few things more fundamental than how the state operates and exercises power and how it interacts with the people. Our constitution should belong to the people of the United Kingdom and not to political insiders or Members of Parliament. It is about our democracy, and so, as the nation celebrates the 800th anniversary of the first Magna Carta, we need to look forward as well as back. What should the Government of this country look like over the next 800 years?

Oliver Heald: In my constituency is the village of Walkern, which was the administrative centre of William de Lanvalei, one of the 25 barons elected at Runnymede in 1215 to ensure that King John adhered to the law of the land set out in Magna Carta. The Walkern history society is doing a fantastic job this year, together with Janet Woodall and funded by the Big Lottery Fund, in celebrating that fact.
	Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the great concerns about a codified constitution or, indeed, a consolidation is that it would affect this place’s arrangements and the arrangements with the courts? It might lead to a constitutional court being seen as a rival or as taking power away from this place. Does he agree that that would be undesirable? The self-restraint that we have in this place and in the courts is very welcome.

Fabian Hamilton: I am fascinated to learn about the hon. and learned Gentleman’s constituency and the importance that it has in the original Magna Carta. I agree that if a codified or written constitution is not properly drafted, such mistakes could be made and the judiciary, as the King’s college London research suggests, could become extremely politicised. We know from other countries with written constitutions that it is often the constitutional court that makes decisions that should rightly be made by Parliament and by elected Members. All that is capable of being overcome, however, by careful, considered drafting and by asking the people of this country what they want to see in that constitution, if indeed that is what they want.

Stephen Twigg: I welcome the Select Committee’s report. Working on a cross-party basis, the Committee has done a truly
	excellent job in producing a weighty document on a serious constitutional and political challenge.
	How does my hon. Friend think we can best take the debate forward? He spoke of a national consultation between now and the end of the year. How does the Select Committee propose that we engage with civil society organisations such as Unlock Democracy and Bite the Ballot? How might we best engage with young people in this important debate?

Fabian Hamilton: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I am sure that, in common with many Members of this House, he regularly visits schools. Many primary schools from my constituency have visited the House of Commons and many young people have been present in the Palace of Westminster these last few weeks. When I talk to school councils, whether in primary or secondary schools, I find a huge interest in how government works, how we run the country and how the House of Commons and Parliament work. It is sometimes hard to unravel and for many to understand, but a debate among schoolchildren, who have that growing interest, would actually serve to inform us as well, because they are the next generation of public representatives of the judiciary and of the electorate and we want their input.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned Bite the Ballot and Unlock Democracy, both of which have given evidence on numerous occasions to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, as have many other civil society organisations. We value that important evidence, but we need to spread the message as far and as wide as we possibly can. It is not the main topic of the day, but it is crucial to how Governments and Parliament are run in future and the engagement of the next generation.

Henry Smith: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for setting out the conclusions of the Select Committee’s report. What evidence was taken from other countries that also have Magna Carta as arguably their most important constitutional document? I am particularly thinking of places that have codified constitutions in the Anglosphere, such as Australia, Canada and the United States.

Fabian Hamilton: Yes, indeed. The hon. Gentleman can see the size of the document, and I commend it to him. I cannot say that I have read it from cover to cover, but I have had a great part as a member of the Committee in creating it. We took evidence from other countries. Of course, we looked at New Zealand, which has an uncodified constitution, and at Australia. Interestingly, we looked at France and at Iceland, which has an older Parliament even than our own. There were many lessons to learn from all those other countries, whether they had codified constitutions, written constitutions or unwritten ones, as New Zealand does. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the report or even scans it, he will find many of those examples both in the body of the report and in its appendices. There is a lot to learn from other nations.

Paul Flynn: Although it is right to celebrate the Magna Carta, it is worth noting that the laws of Hywel Dda, which were written 200
	years before Magna Carta, gave rights not just to the aristocracy and barons but to all women. There is much that is progressive in the cyfraith Hywel.
	Page 348 of the report, on war and armed conflict, suggests that to go to war we should need a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Parliament and a positive legal opinion that approves it. This is a matter that has changed in the convention of the House since 2003, particularly as regards the decision taken by the House on 29 August last year. Does my hon. Friend believe that this will be a major item of discussion and reform?

Fabian Hamilton: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments and question. Yes, of course, this is a new departure even during my brief 17 years here in the House of Commons. It is essential that this House and its elected members have the say in whether this country goes to war and I think that the public were baffled previously as they did not realise that Parliament did not have to give its approval for an act of war between Great Britain and other nations in the world. We need to codify this and to set it in stone, as it were, so that never again can a Prime Minister say on behalf of the monarch that we declare war. Elected Members of Parliament and only elected Members of Parliament should have that right.

Philip Hollobone: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his statement and praise him and the Committee for the quality of their work. They are bound to win first prize for the largest Select Committee report in this Parliament. Does he agree that a good starting point in reforming the constitution would be to empower this House to decide when it meets and what it discusses? If an event of importance to our nation takes place during one of the parliamentary recesses, it is not the House that decides to recall itself but the Government of the day, which might well be minded not do so. Does he agree that a good starting point would be to introduce a recall mechanism for the House so that it can call itself into session if something important happens either in this country or around the world?

Fabian Hamilton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his pertinent question. I heard the questions that he put to the Leader of the House earlier today on that very subject and it is absolutely clear to me that the elected Members of this House should have control over their timetabling and over whether they can sit. I am baffled about why that has not happened already, although I know that we had some responses on that from the Leader of the House earlier. I would hope that if there were any codified constitution or written constitution for this country it would set the elected Chamber of our Parliament at its heart. Otherwise, our electors simply cannot understand it when they contact us and ask us to recall Parliament for a debate on whether to attack Syria, Iraq or whoever it might be, only for us to say that it is up to the Government of the day and that we have no power to make that decision. That has to change.

Mark Durkan: I thank my hon. Friend for making this statement about the report. I joined the Select Committee in the midst of this inquiry. Does he recognise, as regards the question that has just been raised, that a codified constitution might provide a
	more cogent assertion of this House’s authority vis-à-vis the Executive and that it might also answer a constant frustration that we hear from some in this House, as there seems to be an overlap between those who are Eurosceptic and those who are sceptical about a written constitution? Some other countries with codified or written constitutions, such as Germany, have been able to use that constitution to show that their national laws have primacy over European laws and the interpretation of European laws.

Fabian Hamilton: I thank my hon. Friend for that relevant and pertinent contribution. That is exactly why I as a member of the Committee and many other members of the Committee support a written or codified constitution. It would state and assert the primacy of our national Parliament over the sovereignty of the European Union and it would define that relationship far more clearly than the statutes and treaties scattered all over the place, which are not brought together, meaning that we do not really know—and the public do not really know—the relationship between elected Members, the European Parliament and the European Union. Who has sovereignty? Who has primacy? Of course we cede some sovereignty when we sign a treaty, but the fact is that Germany has it right and we need perhaps to emulate its example so that we can show that this House and its elected Members, elected by our constituents, the electorate of this country, have sovereignty over our laws and over some of the laws imposed on us with which we are not happy.

16-plus Care Options

Dawn Primarolo: We now come to the second of the Select Committee statements. We will use the same format. The Chair of the Select Committee on Education will make a statement on the report for no more than 10 minutes, during which there will be no interventions taken, then Members will be able to ask questions on the subject of the statement. Again, that will last for approximately 10 minutes in total. I therefore call the Chair of the Education Committee.

Graham Stuart: It is a pleasure to be in the Chamber today with so many members of the Select Committee and other colleagues as we launch our report, “Into independence, not out of care: 16 plus care options”. Our report on 16-plus care options is about a group of young people that is often overlooked and a policy area that is unfashionable and forgotten. We first raised our concerns in our “Children first” report, published in October 2012. During our inquiry into residential children’s homes, the report for which was published in March, we became increasingly concerned about the quality of care and level of support provided for older adolescents as they moved towards greater independence and adulthood, often because of a misguided belief that they are more resilient than younger children.
	This inquiry confirmed just how serious the shortcomings of 16-plus care options are. Our inquiry was launched on 22 January and set out the following terms of reference: the kinds of accommodation provided for young people aged 16 and 17 who are looked after by local authorities; the suitability, safety and regulatory nature of alternative accommodation; whether staying put should apply to those in residential children’s homes; and whether the provision of alternative accommodation should be extended to the age of 21.
	We wanted to make sure that our inquiry was informed by young people affected by the issues we were considering, so we held an informal seminar at the outset of the inquiry to hear the views of young people and care leavers. We visited Ipswich to see examples of “other arrangements”, as they are described in the jargon, and met local authority officers from the region and service providers as well as the Suffolk children in care council. We had nearly 40 submissions of written evidence from a wide range of witnesses and we heard all evidence from two panels of witnesses before questioning the Minister, who I am delighted to see in his place on the Front Bench.
	Our report makes three fundamental recommendations. First, the Department for Education must consult on a framework of individual regulatory oversight for all accommodation that falls within “other arrangements” to ensure suitability while allowing for diversity of provision. These “other arrangements” are those in which 22% of looked-after 16 and 17-year-olds live, and we found that too often they are neither safe nor suitable. Efforts are made to ensure the safety and suitability of provision for children and young people in other settings—childminders, foster carers, children’s homes, schools and sixth-form colleges are each and every one of them regulated and inspected, yet “other arrangements” for some of the most vulnerable young people in this country are not.
	Current quality assurance relies on Ofsted tracking a sample of cases. This would not be an acceptable approach for any of the settings that I have just listed, and it should not be acceptable for the accommodation in which some of society’s most vulnerable young people are housed. Individual regulation and inspection is the only way, we believe, to ensure suitability.
	The second key proposal is that the DFE must consult urgently local authorities to establish a reasonable time frame for the absolute ban on the use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation for looked-after young people. The Department says that bed and breakfasts are not suitable for this group, yet they continue to be used, sometimes for a long period. We heard shocking accounts of looked-after 16 and 17-year-olds placed in bed-and-breakfast accommodation which was not only unsuitable, but made the young people feel frightened and threatened.
	We recognise the negative implications of a hastily introduced outright ban. That is why we urge the DFE to consult local authorities and establish a realistic time frame in which alternative emergency arrangements can be found, settled and established. This will require local authorities to be creative and to work together, but it is vital that the urgency of the situation is not lost. We know from the performance of some councils that it can be done and is being done, so let it be done everywhere and for all.
	In the meantime, the message is plain: bed and breakfasts are not suitable and should be used only in extreme, emergency situations, and even then never for more than a few days before the ban comes into force. In addition, local authority children’s services should report to the Department the numbers of looked-after young people placed in bed-and-breakfast accommodation so that we have a clear picture of how much this unsuitable accommodation is being used to house these vulnerable young people.
	Our third key recommendation is that looked-after young people living in residential children’s homes should have the right to stay there until they are 21, just as those living in foster care now can, thanks to changes brought in by this Government. We recommend that the DFE extend Staying Put to residential children’s homes. We were not convinced by the Minister’s arguments against an extension of this policy. It may not be in the best interest of some young people, or their preference, to stay in their residential children’s home, but many who are settled and thriving would greatly benefit from the stability of staying put in the home which is their home.
	The DFE argues that the quality of children’s homes must improve before it will allow young people to stay beyond their 18th birthday. That argument does not bear much scrutiny. The most recent figures from Ofsted inspections at the beginning of this year show that for overall effectiveness 68% of children’s homes inspected were judged good or outstanding, and just 6% were found to be inadequate. Furthermore, forcing young people to move at the age of 18 from a home that may be judged good or better by Ofsted to unregulated and sometimes unsuitable settings makes no sense.
	In addition to these fundamental recommendations, we found that there are several other aspects of 16-plus care options in desperate need of attention, which can
	be split into three broad areas. First, our report focuses on the planning and preparation for a young person’s move to independence. In particular, young people need to know more and have the chance to say more, while also being given the support and encouragement to maintain the relationships that matter most to them.
	Secondly, our report sets out the necessary steps to ensure minimal disruption and maximum stability during a young person’s transition to adulthood and independence. This includes offering a safety net if life takes a turn for the worst; providing support to the age of 25, without exception; and providing the much needed peace of mind as a young person prepares for important exams, by ensuring the stability of their placement at that time. Thirdly, we stress the importance of providing options, be it staying in “other arrangements” until the age of 21, or simultaneously meeting the wish for independence and the need for continuing support through Staying Close, which is where accommodation is provided close to, for instance, a residential children’s home where a young person has developed solid relationships with trusted adults.
	We were deeply impressed by the young people we met, who spoke to us openly and honestly about their personal experiences. Their contributions added value to our inquiry and confirmed our view that these young people deserve better. This report is a step towards ensuring that they get it.

Stephen McCabe: I commend the Education Committee on an excellent report. There is a host of questions that I would like to ask, but I know that Madam Deputy Speaker would not want me to do that, so I shall confine myself to one and seek out the Chairman and other members of the Committee on another occasion to explore many of the issues raised in the report, including the use of personal advisers and extending Staying Put.
	I was particularly shocked by the bed-and-breakfast revelations. Was the Committee able to form a picture of the likely numbers of young people in care who are required to live in bed-and-breakfast accommodation beyond a period of 28 days? The Committee was right to say that an immediate ban would be problematic and that there should be a period of reflection, but does the Chairman think it advisable for the Government to consider an immediate restriction that ensures that no young person in care can be required to live in bed-and-breakfast accommodation for longer than 28 days?

Graham Stuart: I thank the shadow Minister for his question. We did not specify in the report precisely what that limit should be, but we are entirely in sympathy with that thinking. We would be more ambitious. We think 28 days is outrageously long. A stay of a week would be too long; probably five days would be acceptable. The case that was put to us is that at 11 o’clock on a Friday night—the famous 11 o’clock on a Friday night case—a place must be found for a child. Okay, but by the following Wednesday, the whole power of the local authority, which is in the position of parent, cannot find something different for the child? We found that hard to believe. We did not specify the duration because we wanted to give maximum flexibility, but a lot less than 28 days would be the collective view of my Committee.

Craig Whittaker: I am particularly proud of this piece of work. I think it is one of the best that we have done as a cross-party Committee, of which I am a member. Does my hon. Friend agree that for far too many years the long-term prognosis for far too many of our young people in care has been bleak, and that the recommendations based on the evidence in the report go a long way to rectify some of those injustices?

Graham Stuart: I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for his hard work and commitment in this area and others on the Committee. I know he would join me, as would Members across the House, in recognising the personal commitment of the Minister to make a difference in this area, and that significant improvements have been made under this Government. None the less, outcomes for young people in care in this country for far too long have been bleak, as my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker) puts it. When we look at how many people who have been in care end up in prison, in prostitution, or struggling with drug and alcohol dependency, that does not say a lot about the parenting that we have put in place for those young people, and we know that other countries manage to do a lot better, both educationally and in broader terms, to prepare people for adult life.
	What better test of a civilisation than how it looks after young people whose families may have disintegrated and failed to provide them with support? What better way to judge that civilisation than by its ability to meet the needs of those young people and make sure that those most vulnerable people get a fair crack at life and are supported all the way into adulthood, rather than too often abandoned at a young and vulnerable age?

Pat Glass: I associate myself with the comments of the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker). I am particularly proud of this report, which I think is one of the most important that the Committee has produced over the past four years. It contains many recommendations, and I am looking for positive responses from the Government on all of them, but I will mention the two that I think are most urgent. First, we recommend that Ofsted should inspect provision for children leaving care at 16. As the Chair of the Committee said, we would not allow schools, further education colleges or children’s homes not to be subject to inspection by Ofsted, so why should we allow provision for our most vulnerable children leaving care not to be? Secondly, we recommend that Staying Put should also be available to children in children’s homes, who are often taken into care late and are often the most vulnerable. They are the most likely to end up unemployed, homeless, in prison, subject to substance abuse and so on. I am particularly concerned that we get a positive response to those two recommendations and hope that the Chair of the Committee will support that.

Graham Stuart: I very much agree with the hon. Lady. I am pleased to see the newly promoted Financial Secretary to the Treasury on the Front Bench. Even if we were to view that group of people in the driest economic terms, we would see that investing to save by ensuring that they get the stability and support they need when they are at their most vulnerable, which is when they are young,
	would pay off in the long term. That would reduce the number of people in prison or calling on other services because their lives have not worked out right. I know that Treasury Ministers are always told to invest to save, but here we have a moral need to do the right thing by those young people but also, when we consider how catastrophic the outcomes are for so many of them, an overwhelming economic case. Even in these tough times, we should find the resources and focus them on that group, because we will make proper improvement on every front, as the hon. Lady rightly points out.

Philip Hollobone: I praise my hon. Friend for his statement and commend his Committee for an excellent report. Were the Secretary of State for Education or the Minister to say to him later, “Look, Graham, we have a lot on our plate at the moment and lots of things we are trying to push through, so which one recommendation could we pursue for you?”, what would his answer be?

Graham Stuart: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question, despite his attempt to narrow me to one recommendation. I would hate to tempt the Minister into saying that we can have only one recommendation, because the report contains a coherent set of proposals that hang together, and I know that they fit with the direction of travel on which the Government have already set out. None the less, one should always answer the question, so I would ask the Minister to look at the “other arrangements” and ensure that they are regulated. It is not just those who have left care who are in the “other arrangements”, and the number of 16 and 17-year-olds leaving care has been massively reduced under this Government, on which they should be congratulated. Often young people are still in care when they are in the “other arrangements”, so we are still in loco parentis. The fact is that that accommodation is not inspected or regulated, and we do not think that sampling is enough. That is the one thing that, above all else, must change.

Alex Cunningham: The Chair might have anticipated my question by referring to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. The Chair will recollect the series of visits we undertook and the discussions we had with young people, as he mentioned earlier. They felt abandoned in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. One young woman told us about people braying at her door late at night, and another told us that she had been left for weeks on end in unsuitable accommodation. He and I agree, as does the Committee, that bed-and-breakfast accommodation should be banned as soon as practically possible for young people, but does he also agree that local and national Government need to have, and need to provide the necessary resources to have, proper emergency provisions, perhaps by sharing between authorities, and end the practice that so often puts young people at risk?

Graham Stuart: I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his contribution and the passion he brings to these issues and, quite rightly, to challenging the Government and asking for more on behalf of those young people. He is absolutely right. I know that the personal testimony we heard seared his conscience, as it did mine. We heard those young people consistently and articulately describe the awful situations they found themselves in, such as
	bed-and-breakfast accommodation with troubled adults around them, in one case knocking on the door of a young woman who was barely 16 years old, inviting her to come to their room. She was traumatised and frightened and, supposedly, in the care of the state.

Bill Esterson: I add my voice to those of Members who have already said how important it is that the report has been published and that we support this group of incredibly vulnerable young people with all the financial benefits that would come from it. As the report states, the young people in residential children’s homes are often the most vulnerable. That is why its recommendations on extending care to the age of 21 in residential settings are so important. I, too, was struck by the evidence we heard from young people during the inquiry, particularly on the importance of relationships, whether with carers, other professionals, friends or mentors, and the difference that can make to young people. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that support needs to be about extending care to the whole group of people leaving care, the quality and availability of the settings, and the psychological benefits of long-term relationships, both professional and personal?

Graham Stuart: I thank the hon. Gentleman for taking such a close and passionate interest in the subject and for his work on the Committee. He is absolutely right. As we have seen in all the work we have done on child protection and vulnerable children, it has come down again and again to the quality of relationships. That is why it is so important that relationships should be maintained and why we have made our specific recommendations on staying put and on contact with
	siblings. We heard testimony from young people who did not want to be forced to see their parents but who wanted to see their brothers or sisters, whom they loved and had great relationships with. That needs to be improved.
	Extending Staying Put to residential care homes is an expensive option, because the cost of providing a care home place is high. It means that having stabilised someone, they are then given the option—let us remember that they can leave at 18 if they want to; they will not be forced to stay—to remain in a place that is happy to have them, where they want to stay, where they can have stable relationships and from which they can go to college and start to build a life. It is probably the most expensive of the suggestions in our report, so I am delighted to have such a senior and influential Treasury Minister on the Front Bench to hear the arguments, because that truly would be a good investment in the future of the country and the future of young people who have been let down not only by their families, but, too often, by the state.

BILL PRESENTED

National Insurance Contributions Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, supported by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, Danny Alexander, Mr David Gauke, Priti Patel and Andrea Leadsom, presented a Bill to make provision in relation to national insurance contributions; and for connected purposes.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Monday 21 July, and to be printed (Bill 80) with explanatory notes (Bill 80-EN).

BACKBENCH BUSINESS

Universal Postal Service

Katy Clark: I beg to move,
	That this House believes that the Universal Service Obligation as set out in the Postal Services Act 2011 is under threat from unfair competition from organisations which are rapidly expanding end-to-end delivery services in low-cost, high-density urban areas while leaving high-cost, low-density rural areas to be covered by Royal Mail, the universal service provider; and calls on the Government to instruct Ofcom to bring forward proposals to protect the Universal Service Obligation and the commercial viability of Royal Mail against this threat.
	I am very grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for allowing us to have this important, timely, and indeed urgent, debate, given the threat to the universal service obligation. I refer to my entries in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and advise the House that I have worked with Royal Mail, the Communication Workers Union and Unite the union on the issue in the run-up to the debate.
	The London assembly yesterday passed a similar motion expressing concern at the expansion of end-to-end postal services by TNT Post and the ability of such organisations to cherry-pick services that provide the most lucrative work. The assembly was particularly interested in that, as TNT started off providing end-to-end services in London. The motion it passed went further than the one we are considering today, as it called on Royal Mail to be brought back into public ownership.
	Royal Mail is the UK’s universal service provider. It is required under the Postal Services Act 2011 to deliver to 29 million UK addresses six days a week, and five days a week for other packets, all being delivered at an affordable, geographically uniform price.
	Ofcom became the official regulator of postal services on 1 October 2011. Its primary duty is to secure the provision of the universal service obligation for postal services. It also has a duty, under the Communications Act 2003, to further the interests of citizens and consumers, where appropriate, to promote competition, but its duty to secure the universal service obligation always takes precedence.
	There are two types of competition in postal services. The first is downstream access, which allows providers other than Royal Mail to collect and sort mail and then give it to Royal Mail to deliver over the so-called final mile. Obviously, it is not always only a mile, and sometimes it can be less than a mile, but that final part of the process is the part that Royal Mail has a legal obligation to carry out. The other type is the end-to-end service, which is the direct delivery of mail to the customer without any need for Royal Mail to get involved in the process. That is what I will focus on today.
	TNT Post is currently Royal Mail’s main competitor in the end-to-end market. In 2012, it launched a direct delivery trial providing a full end-to-end service in west London. Since then, it has rapidly expanded into other parts of London and into Manchester and Liverpool. It plans, by the end of 2017, to cover over 42% of households in the UK, although only about 8.5% of the UK’s geographical area.

Diane Abbott: Is my hon. Friend aware of the many complaints about TNT’s service in London because of its use of agency staff, with letters being dumped and put through the wrong letterboxes? It does not just create unfair competition; it provides a poor service.

Katy Clark: Indeed, we are aware of the concerns about the inferior terms and conditions of TNT’s staff compared with those of Royal Mail, and about the service that customers are receiving. Of course, organisations other than Royal Mail are not required to meet the standards of service that it has a legal obligation to provide.

Gareth Thomas: I apologise for missing the first part of my hon. Friend’s remarks. Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), when the then Conservative-run council in Harrow decided to use TNT for the delivery of council tax letters, there was a whole series of reports of bad distribution processes—so much so that in the end Royal Mail had to be used to get the letters out in their entirety.

Katy Clark: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that example, which illustrates the problems we are having and are likely to have to a greater degree as time goes on if the expansion takes place in the way that is intended.

Robert Smith: I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate. It is important for people to realise that one of the problems is that while the customer is the person posting the letter, it is the recipient who does not get their bank statement, bill or cheque, and they have no say in that. That is why conditions are an important part of what Ofcom needs to look at.

Katy Clark: Given the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, I suspect that he shares many of my concerns. I hope that we will explore all these issues in the debate.
	I do not think the House necessarily fully appreciated that the expansion of TNT would take place quite so rapidly, and that is why this debate is so urgent. This expansion is a direct threat to the universal service because Royal Mail needs the universal service in order to be able to use revenues that it generates in areas where it is easier to deliver mail. In the areas I mentioned—London, Manchester and Liverpool—it is easier to deliver mail and therefore easier to generate profits. It is necessary for Royal Mail to use that work to generate profits to help to cover the rest of the national network.
	I represent a large rural constituency in Scotland with islands and many small communities. In many parts of it, the costs of providing a mail delivery service will be quite considerable, no matter how we organise postal services.

David Hamilton: Surely that is the whole point. Royal Mail needs the cross-subsidy to be able to deliver to the sparsely populated areas that my hon. Friend and I represent. That is key, and the ombudsman has to take it into account in relation to fair competition.

Katy Clark: The hon. Gentleman, or rather my hon. Friend—

David Hamilton: Comrade.

Katy Clark: Indeed—he is both a friend and a comrade. I am delighted that he is here today. He represents a very similar constituency to mine.
	Members in all parts of the House represent constituencies where we know it will never be profitable to deliver mail. That is why the universal service is so important. It is also important that we ensure that stamp prices are kept at a level that is affordable in all parts of the country.

Iain McKenzie: Does my hon. Friend agree that we have seen this unfair competition before when the Conservatives were last in power and they privatised British Telecom? The other companies wanted the cities but not the rural areas, and now we see that again with Royal Mail.

Katy Clark: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Perhaps we can enter into that debate on another occasion.
	The Government are allowing TNT to cherry-pick the services in more profitable city areas, where its presence has already led to reductions of 14% to 15% in the use of Royal Mail.

Tom Blenkinsop: I apologise for missing the first two minutes of my hon. Friend’s speech in this very important debate. Does she accept that, although Labour Members voted to maintain the public ownership of Royal Mail, it is now notionally a private company? The USO is about providing a service, irrespective of the company that does it, across the country. There has to be an understanding from the Government, which was missing in Committee when Labour Members argued vociferously that this type of situation would occur, that we need to use a levy on TNT and other private sector companies or look at the structure of how mail is distributed across this country, on a regional basis or otherwise, to make sure that provision is universal.

Katy Clark: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Many predicted that we would face this problem. Indeed, we are here to give a warning that it is already beginning to happen and that action is necessary now—we do not have time to wait. He is absolutely correct that that action is required whether Royal Mail is in the public sector or the private sector—given that most of it is not held by the Government or the work force.

Peter Hain: I very much support my hon. Friend’s argument. I wonder whether, early in the morning a couple of weeks ago, she heard the interview on Radio 4’s “Today” programme with a business analyst who predicted the end of the universal door-to-door service because, he said, it will be impossible for Royal Mail, faced with this unfair competition, to sustain it. The universal service exists in statute, but does she agree that it is not specified what that means? It could mean collection from a central collection point, not delivery door to door.

Katy Clark: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course, he has a very long track record and great expertise on these issues. If we do not take action now, then when the House considers this matter in a number of years’ time, there will be serious proposals for a reduction in the kind of service that people receive. We hope that the Government will take action now to make sure that we are not faced with that problem.
	At the moment, Royal Mail still delivers 99% of mail in the UK. Our concern is that that situation could change very quickly given the current expansion plans of TNT, in particular, and perhaps other providers as well. Royal Mail itself estimates that TNT’s expansion strategy could result in a reduction of more than £200 million in Royal Mail revenue by 2017-18. The reality is that much of the most profitable section of the market, namely the business mail, is already handled by companies other than Royal Mail. Indeed, that has been the case for a considerable period. There has also been a significant reduction in the volume of letters over the past decade, which also continues to put pressure on the universal service obligation.
	Royal Mail is subject to vigorous and rigorous performance standards. Its competitors are not subject to the same standards. There is also no requirement on competitors to report on service standards, as Ofcom says that service standards are driven by market forces. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) has pointed out, there are many concerns about the poor quality of service that customers receive from TNT in areas where it operates. There are also many concerns about the terms and conditions of the work force, which are considerably worse than those of the Royal Mail work force.
	I believe that the motion is moderate. It calls on Ofcom to carry out a full review and to make proposals for regulation to create a level playing field in the postal services market. In particular, I ask Ofcom to consider whether a compensation fund could be established to support the provision of the universal service, which could be used to collect contributions from those that benefit from providing en-to-end service without the requirements of meeting the universal service. I also ask Ofcom to consider whether the general service conditions that currently apply specifically to Royal Mail alone should be extended to apply also to other operators.
	We should also consider removing the requirement on Royal Mail to allow other operators to access to its network. Hon. Members who visit the postal depots in their constituencies at Christmas will know that the work force have been raising concerns about that issue for many years. There is no doubt that that requirement to deliver mail for others has been a burden on Royal Mail.

Iain McKenzie: It is not only about the commitment to deliver that mail for others; often, Royal Mail also has to sort that mail before delivering it for them.

Katy Clark: My hon. Friend and his family have a great deal of experience in these matters, as do I. He is absolutely correct. I think that the situation is slightly less frustrating for the work force now, because the work used to be even more of a drain on Royal Mail and it made a considerable loss as a result. The financial arrangements have improved slightly, but this is very much an area that Ofcom needs to look at.

John McDonnell: My hon. Friend has come up with concrete proposals and a recommendation for Ofcom, but is not the problem that Ofcom has no sense of urgency at the moment? It says that it will not institute a review until the end of 2015 and that the 2011 legislation statutorily barred it from establishing a fund for five years, which means that it will not be able to do so until 2016, unless the Secretary of State acts. There is, therefore, a twin responsibility; on the Secretary of State to act in order to enable a discussion about the fund; and on Ofcom to institute the review now.

Katy Clark: There is a great deal of complacency on this issue from not only Ofcom, but the Government. We are seeing the warning signs now and we need the Government to make it very clear that we believe there is a real threat to the universal service. Ofcom needs to look at the matter urgently, carry out a full review and come up with proposals to ensure a level playing field in the postal services market and to protect the universal service.

Robert Smith: I again congratulate the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) on addressing this important subject and welcome the decision of the Backbench Business Committee to choose it for debate. It takes up the issue raised by early-day motion 151 and the importance of the universal service.
	The hon. Lady has outlined just how important that universal service is, given the diverse nature of postal deliveries. The service ensures that, almost wherever people live—one or two lighthouses are exempt—they can expect post to be delivered at the same price and in the same time frame as anywhere else. As the hon. Lady recognised, that is extremely important in my large and rural constituency, where there is great respect for the knowledge of the posties. I think that the posties’ commitment to public service is sometimes damaging to the institution they work for, because when the white vans are lost and cannot find where to deliver the parcels, it is often the postie who gives them directions and helps them get to their destination. The service is very valuable and important, and it is currently funded by the cross-subsidy from the easier business in the urban areas. That cross-subsidy is crucial to the universal service.
	Competition was introduced by the previous Government under the European Union directives, but that competition went further, faster and deeper than it should have and Postcomm saw its role as driving competition rather than protecting the universal service. I remember warning it at the outset that the lost opportunity of going too slow was far less damaging than going deeper and faster and doing permanent damage. The regulator was so worried about not getting the most efficient market that it erred on the other side, which did too much damage. As the hon. Lady has said, that led to the downstream access being set at the wrong price, doing considerable damage to Royal Mail. Competition coming in faster did not give Royal Mail the time to adapt, which it needed to do, because it had inefficient machinery and had invested in the wrong kind of machinery. As a result of the UK going faster than the rest of the EU, EU operators could cherry-pick the upstream business
	in the UK, but Royal Mail could not do the reverse in other markets, because EU competition was not being driven as fast as that in the UK.
	It was important that this Government enshrined the universal service in law, abolished Postcomm and brought in Ofcom to regulate. At least that did something to sort out that upstream competition and level the playing field. Now, however, we have the same concern that, when it comes to the final mile, the cherry-picking is going to go faster than expected by the markets. It is important for the regulator to review that risk, to make sure that we do not again get into a situation where competition goes too far and too fast for Royal Mail to be able to adapt.
	The important suggestion from this debate is to consider putting burdens and regulations on rival delivery companies to require them to meet the same standards as Royal Mail, because, if they do not have to meet those standards, they will obviously be able to undercut costs. That goes back to what I said in my earlier intervention: it was very much Postcomm’s philosophy that the customer was not the person having the letter delivered to them, but the person making the decision where to post it. A big commercial organisation may well look at the bottom line when it comes to deciding who to contract its delivery services to, and it is the poor bank customer who never gets their letter who is the victim. The feedback loop means that they have to complain to their bank, which then has to consider whether to change the contract for delivery services. Ofcom should take on board the important suggestion that it should set standards of delivery and quality so that rival companies cannot unfairly undercut Royal Mail.
	I will say to Ofcom what I said to Postcomm: if it goes a bit too slowly in introducing competition, we will not get the full benefit of competition as quickly as possible, but if it goes too fast, it will be far more difficult for it to unravel the situation in the end. I urge Ofcom to review the situation and look at the conditions that would protect such a vital service that has served our rural communities so well.

Albert Owen: It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith), a fellow member of the Energy and Climate Change Committee, who spoke in a very measured way. He is right that competition started some time ago, but we are now in a very difficult position.
	I want to pay tribute to postal workers for their excellent work in providing services throughout the year in very difficult circumstances and weather. There has been great modernisation in postal services—within the Post Office or Royal Mail—and things have got better, but we now need to deal with the issue of unfair competition.
	You would rule me out of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I went on about the privatisation of Royal Mail, but that privatisation has set a very dangerous precedent, and issues have arisen from other privatisations. Market forces have served rural Britain badly and, for areas such as mine on the periphery, there is the double whammy of being rural and peripheral. We must do something about that, and I will come on to talk about a model that would fit and would improve the situation: the introduction of a not-for-profit model, stopping short of full nationalisation, is the way forward.
	When privatisation went through, concerns were expressed in this House about the universal obligation, and such issues have been raised in the past. Let us be honest, however, that companies will never come to north-west Wales and say that they will deliver the service for the same price as they would in Chester, Liverpool or Manchester. That just does not happen. Our current delivery service on five days a week for parcels and six days a week for letters will not exist in the future. That is the reality when services are opened up to the market.
	We have seen that in other privatised utilities, such as British Telecom. The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine said that lighthouses are exempt, but under the old Post Office those in my constituency had a telephone line, just like buildings in the towns and cities of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. They had the same service, with the same infrastructure and pricing, as the rest of the country.
	That was when the Post Office was an iconic brand, as Royal Mail is today, and provided a universal service. Following privatisation, however, such areas do not get the same full broadband, or the services and maintenance, but they pay the same price. Mobile phone coverage is patchy across rural areas of the United Kingdom. In my area, we are lucky to get 3G or even 2G, let alone 4G. That is the reality in many parts of the United Kingdom when services are opened up to the market. The pricing is the same— I pay the same for my mobile phone contract as somebody in central London—but people do not get the same service and back-up, which is the danger in such a free market.
	There is a way forward. Water was privatised, and Welsh Water has become a not-for-profit organisation, with the profits being ploughed back into the company to improve the service. The service, including the quality of water, is the same across the whole of rural and urban Wales, because the profits are reinvested. There is competition within the system—the company has to comply with European directives on liberalisation—on tendering, and that might work in the postal service. I must say that when my party was in government and intended to make such a change, it did not consider these models. It should have analysed not-for-profit models, because they provide not only a universal service, but a mechanism for competition. Tendering for contracts has to be done under EU regulations so that many people can benefit from such competition. At the end of the day, the customer pays the company and gets a service that is universal across the whole of Wales.
	We should look at the iconic brand of the Royal Mail in the same way as water, which has a proven model that will work for the future. I want my constituents and people across rural Britain to enjoy the same standard of service and the same costs, because that is very important in this day and age. Yes, Royal Mail needs to modernise, as it has, but it also needs to keep what I think is the best of British, which is the universal service it provides under the service obligation.
	I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) for securing this debate. It is worth putting on the record that there is a way forward. Competition is not the answer: the market has failed in many areas, and it will not serve people on the periphery
	or in rural areas of the United Kingdom to continue down the road of opening to competition areas that will be cherry-picked by companies only for profits. We want a universal service across the United Kingdom. We will have to fight for that, and we must put in place a model that will deliver it.

Alan Reid: I congratulate the Backbench Business Committee on giving us time to debate this important issue, and my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark), on introducing it in a very measured and sensible way. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), although I must correct him on one point. Before Postcomm introduced licence conditions for Royal Mail, it had refused to deliver to the lighthouse he mentioned, so not everything was perfect in the past.
	The universal postal service is obviously extremely important to my constituency, with its scattered population and its many islands, and to all rural constituencies in the country. Royal Mail has an extremely dedicated work force, who go out in all weathers to deliver the mail, often up muddy tracks and in very difficult conditions, and they have a detailed local knowledge that private rivals simply do not have, as in the example given by my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith).
	I supported the Postal Services Act 2011 because it enshrined the universal service obligation into law. That means that Royal Mail is legally obliged to deliver to every home and business in the country, as well as to collect from every post box in the country six days a week, at the same price throughout the country. To back up the legal requirement, the Act imposed on the regulator, Ofcom, the legal responsibility to ensure the sustainability of the USO.
	We must remember that competition is not new—it did not just start with the 2011 Act—because it was introduced more than 10 years ago by the previous Government, who, in an all-too-familiar story, gold-plated a European directive. Competition means that delivery companies can cherry-pick cheap-to-deliver urban areas, and leave Royal Mail the more expensive job of delivering to sparsely populated rural areas, such as my constituency. As has frequently been pointed out, Royal Mail relies on its cross-subsidy from profitable urban routes to sparsely populated rural routes.
	TNT Post has made most use of the ability to cherry-pick the areas to which it is cheapest to deliver. Its end-to-end business has expanded rapidly since it started trials for the service in west London in April 2012. According to Royal Mail, TNT aims to cover about 42% of UK addresses by 2017. As well as cherry-picking areas, companies such as TNT can also cut costs by delivering only on certain days of the week.

Robert Smith: That point is very important. The Ofcom argument is about volume, but such companies are cherry-picking the very high margin, good-quality business.

Alan Reid: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Some forms of high-volume business mail incur lower costs than for people sending Christmas cards or postcards.
	Obviously, if a company has high-volume mail from a big organisation coming into its system, that is much easier for it to deliver.
	In fairness, it should be pointed out that Royal Mail has some advantages. For example, it has a nationwide infrastructure and benefits from economies of scale.
	Royal Mail is very concerned about TNT’s plans and sees them as a threat to its ability to deliver the USO. We must always remember that Royal Mail is a private company with a duty to maximise the revenue for its shareholders. Therefore, it may or may not be crying wolf. It is Ofcom’s responsibility to decide whether Royal Mail is crying wolf.
	Ofcom has many tools at its disposal to protect the USO. It could impose regulatory conditions on other operators to level the playing field. For example, it could require other providers to deliver over a larger geographical area than just a small urban area or to deliver on more days in the week. Ofcom also has the power to introduce a universal service fund. It can review whether delivering the universal service places a financial burden on Royal Mail and determine whether it is fair for Royal Mail alone to carry that burden. However, that cannot be done before October 2016 without Government direction.

Katy Clark: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the possibility of a compensation fund, which organisations such as TNT could pay into. Does he agree that organisations that deliver business mail, which they have been able to do for many years, might also be required to pay into such a fund, given the amount of money they make from the lucrative work that they do?

Alan Reid: I agree with the hon. Lady that it is not just TNT and companies like it that would have to pay into the fund, but a wider range of companies. That would be a decision for Ofcom.
	If Ofcom finds that there is a net burden on Royal Mail, there is a provision in the 2011 Act that allows the Government to direct Ofcom to establish the universal service fund. That would require other operators to contribute financially to support the universal service. I do not think that we are at that stage yet, but the Government and Ofcom might have to use that power at some time in the future.
	Royal Mail has pointed out that it has to meet all the targets that are set by Ofcom and publish its performance against those targets quarterly and annually.

Michael Crockart: My hon. Friend spoke earlier about whether Ofcom recognises that there are extra costs. Of course, Ofcom did recognise that there were extra costs, but its answer to Royal Mail was that it should change its charging structure and charge other organisations more on a zonal basis. Royal Mail immediately did so, but TNT complained and we are now in a year-long re-examination under the Competition Act 1998. Ofcom tried to provide a way out, but it has not worked. Surely it now needs to come up with something else.

Alan Reid: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. The universal service is so important for the country that I hope that any reviews or inquiries will be given a high
	priority and be conducted as quickly as possible, whether they are being carried out by Ofcom or the Competition and Markets Authority.
	As I was saying, Royal Mail has pointed out that it has to meet all the targets that are set by Ofcom and publish its performance against those targets quarterly and annually. However, its competitors do not have to meet or publish any targets, other than the figures on complaints. Ofcom should use its powers to set targets for all operators and compel them to meet them. That would provide transparency and allow consumers to make an informed choice between operators.

Iain McKenzie: I fully accept what the hon. Gentleman says about the need for a level playing field. Does he accept that companies might want to produce information on targets to show that they have a process of continuous improvement and that they are providing a good-quality service?

Alan Reid: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct. A company that has any ethos at all will want to demonstrate that it is doing a good job. I therefore do not see how rival operators could possibly object to such a proposal.
	In an e-mail that it sent me, Royal Mail alleged that TNT has dumped and misdelivered mail. We heard interventions from two London Members earlier who said that they had evidence of that happening in their constituencies. That backs up the need for the publication of performance statistics. Such statistics would show if mail is not being delivered and is disappearing from the system.
	Ofcom has stated that before the end of next year, it will commence a review of the impact of end-to-end competition to assess any potential threat to the provision of the universal service. I do not think that it should wait until the end of next year. It should commence the review now because this is such an important service. That would be in the interests not just of Royal Mail and the consumer, but of rival operators. It is in everybody’s interests to know as soon as possible what conditions Ofcom will impose on mail delivery companies. I can see an operator such as TNT complaining if, in two years’ time, conditions are imposed on it that it was not told about before it made the investment. I see no advantage in waiting another 17 months before beginning the review.
	My hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine pointed out that we have been here before with Postcomm, which seemed to prioritise competition over protecting the USO. Ofcom’s most important legal duty is to preserve the USO. That was written into the 2011 Act by a Liberal Democrat Minister. I expect Ofcom to do everything possible to protect the USO. I believe that that means holding a review now. I see no purpose that will be served by waiting another 17 months. If Royal Mail is crying wolf, there is no harm in having the review now, because it will show that. However, if Royal Mail is correct in its concerns, having a review now is essential.
	The universal service is essential to rural communities such as Argyll and Bute. Thanks to a Liberal Democrat Minister, the law protects the universal service. Ofcom has a duty to ensure that that legal protection is delivered. As long as Ofcom carries out its duties properly, the USO will be sustainable. However, I believe that Ofcom must carry out the review now.

Michael Weir: I fully support the motion. From what the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) said, the Greater London authority’s motion also sounds interesting and worthy of support.
	The universal service obligation is vital to rural areas of Scotland. It is crucial not only for those who receive mail, but for the many small businesses that rely on the service to get their products to customers. The internet is a two-way street, but only if there is a reliable and cost-effective postal service. We are now told that that service is in imminent danger.
	We should not be in this position. The danger to the universal service following the extension of competition, the privatisation of Royal Mail and the Postal Services Act 2011 was entirely predictable and, indeed, predicted. The only surprise is that it is happening so soon. Royal Mail cannot escape all blame because, when the Act was going through this House, we were told repeatedly by the Government and Royal Mail that it would not endanger the universal service. They were adamant that the modernisation project would keep down prices and protect the USO. They said that the existence of the USO was a huge plus for the business.
	Less than a year after the flotation, Royal Mail is finding that the brave new world of private enterprise is full of difficulties. The company wants Ofcom to undertake an urgent review of the USO because it cannot guarantee that it will remain sustainable due to the impact of privatisation and, in particular, the expansion of TNT, which the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran described in great detail that I will not repeat. Other competitors are cherry-picking the most profitable routes, which is putting pressure on Royal Mail and on its rural routes. That is a far cry from the claim when it was privatised that the universal service was a huge plus for Royal Mail, as it was the only company that guaranteed that it would deliver to every address.
	Ofcom’s role, as set out in the 2011 Act, is bound by conditions that mean that, even if it takes on board Royal Mail’s request to look at the operation of the USO, there is no guarantee that it will take urgent action to tackle the problem. Royal Mail is seeking a review by Ofcom under section 45 of the Act, which is headed, “Fairness of bearing burden of universal service obligations”. I remind Members that the options that Ofcom has under those provisions are very limited. The first limitation is that it will inevitably take time for Ofcom to undertake the necessarily detailed review of the universal service. If Royal Mail is correct about the impact that TNT is having, do we have time to wait for Ofcom to decide whether to undertake the review, come to a conclusion and bring in its changes?

Robert Smith: On that point, it would obviously make sense that the sooner it starts, the sooner it will be able to finish the review.

Michael Weir: I do not disagree with that; in fact, I am very keen for it to start, but even with the best will in the world, given previous investigations of this nature, it will take time, and time may be what we do not have. Does anyone really believe that it will be done in a few months? What will be the state of the USO if it takes
	18 months or even two years to undertake such a review? What will Ofcom do? Does anyone in the Chamber really believe that the Government would go to competitor companies and say, “You cannot continue to expand” or “You must contract”? I very much doubt that.
	It seems to me that its options under the 2011 Act are constrained. Under section 8—no one has mentioned this point so far—the Government could review the minimum requirements in terms of section 33, and therefore reduce the minimum requirements of the service. We should remember that under section 29 of the Act, at all times when securing the universal service Ofcom must also take into account
	“the need for the provision of a universal postal service to be financially sustainable,”.
	Does that not also open the door, for example, to raising the price of the universal service? I have previously made the point that with the abandonment of price controls over all other services, second-class post is now the only truly universal service, and even that could be at risk under the proposals. Many small businesses have already seen a rise in costs since privatisation, with an increase in first-class costs and small package rates.
	The hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) recently sponsored a meeting in this House at which Royal Mail presented its case for a review of the USO. I asked it directly whether it was seeking a diminution of the USO, but it denied that. I cannot say that I entirely believed that, but we must be aware that it is one possible outcome of a review, whether or not that is the company’s intention.

Alan Reid: The hon. Gentleman is well aware that the USO can be changed only if there is a vote in both Houses of Parliament, and I cannot believe that any sane political party would vote to reduce the USO.

Michael Weir: I am not sure that the present Government are sane political parties, but I will let that one go.
	The Government will rightly point out that the 2011 Act enshrines the USO in law for the first time. That is true, but during the passage of the Act many of us asked specifically what will happen if the company comes back and says that it can no longer sustain the service. Royal Mail has been privatised, investors have made their profits, and we may well be about to explore the answer to that question.

Tom Blenkinsop: When I asked the current Defence Secretary whether the USO could be changed by statutory instrument, he said that was not the case. He later wrote to me saying that it was the case.

Michael Weir: The hon. Gentleman is right, and as another Member said at that time—I think it was the Minister—such a measure could be rushed through in a wee room upstairs very quickly. That is true, and that is the danger we are now in with the whole process. Will the Minister make it abundantly clear today that protection of the USO was an essential condition of that privatisation, and that whatever the outcome of the review she will not agree to any diminution of the USO? As I said, that could be an outcome of this process, and sometimes we should beware of what we wish for.

Ian Murray: The hon. Gentleman is making an incredibly powerful case about the potential consequences on the USO that Ofcom may bring forward. Will he confirm that a statutory instrument upstairs would not necessarily be a full vote of both Houses? It would be a statutory instrument that goes through both Houses.

Michael Weir: Indeed, that is my understanding.

Alan Reid: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Michael Weir: No, I have given way enough already.

Alan Reid: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Am I right in saying that the procedures of the House are that an affirmative resolution requires a vote of the whole House, not just a vote in Committee?

Eleanor Laing: The hon. Gentleman is correct, and it is interesting that he has taken the trouble to inform the House of that fact this afternoon. I thank him for that, but I point out that the hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir) has the Floor and will continue his speech.

Michael Weir: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. What else could Ofcom do? It could look at section 46 of the 2011 Act, “Contributions for meeting burden”, which we have already discussed, and recommend that all competitors contribute to the cost of running the universal service. As Ofcom has pointed out, however, it is debarred from doing that for a period of five years unless the Minister specifically directs it. Even if the Minister were to direct it, how long would it take to set up such a system, set out the level of contribution, and get it up and running? If the universal service is now in such a condition that Royal Mail is worried about its continuation, do we have time to implement such proposals?
	Under the Act, the Government might try to find a company other than Royal Mail that is willing to take on the universal service, but how many of us think that is likely given what we already know about the operation of other companies in the postal market? They are cherry-picking the profitable services, not building a system to compete with Royal Mail throughout the country.
	Royal Mail suggests that the way forward is to introduce general universal service conditions that would impose conditions on its competitors to prevent them from cherry-picking urban routes, but also mean that they have to deliver to a much wider geographical area. Again, I leave it to Members to decide whether that is likely, but, even if it is, how long will it take to do that when we are told that we are facing an imminent crisis?

Malcolm Bruce: Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the biggest threat to the universal service obligation for Scotland is independence, and will he tell the House exactly what a universal service obligation would mean in an independent Scotland? What would it cost to post something from Carlisle to Dumfries?

Michael Weir: The right hon. Gentleman is being typically ridiculous. The universal service is under threat not because of Scottish independence but because of what
	is happening in this House. It is under threat now—that is what Royal Mail is saying to us—and it is privatisation, supported by him and his colleagues, that is leading to that. Under independence we have committed to bring Royal Mail operations in Scotland back under public ownership, where they should have stayed, and ensure that there is a Royal Mail service in Scotland. If we stay in the Union, we are told not only that we may not have a universal service, but that prices may go up and things may disappear. The right hon. Gentleman should consider a bit more before making such daft interventions.

Michael Crockart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Michael Weir: No, I have had enough from the Liberals—[Interruption.]

Eleanor Laing: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not taking interventions. Hon. Members can ask once, perhaps twice, but three times is too many.

Michael Weir: I have already taken many interventions from the Liberal Democrat Benches.
	Before any of those options can be taken, Ofcom has to make recommendations to the Secretary of State, who then decides whether action is necessary and what action should be taken. Only at that point will any part be played in the whole process by Parliament, perhaps many months if not years after the process has begun. Nothing is likely to happen before the general election, and all that time TNT and others will continue to expand, making it ever more difficult to construct a solution. As Ofcom points out in its briefing for this debate, the competitors have also made complaints about Royal Mail and some of its practices that they claim are unfair, so if this is opened up we run the risk that all sorts of other things will creep in.
	There seems to me to be a contradiction at the heart of the Postal Services Act. We have a private company that has to undertake the delivery of a vital public service, and the only way of enforcing that is through a regulator, about which I have an uneasy feeling given the way the railway industry operates. I believe we need to look further than that and consider wholesale changes to the Act to allow much faster action to protect the USO. I opposed the privatisation of Royal Mail; I still think it was a drastic error, but as the right hon. Member for Gordon (Sir Malcolm Bruce) has pointed out, in September the people of Scotland have a chance to do something about that and ensure that Royal Mail becomes a public service.

Brian Binley: I bring the quiet voice of the other party of the coalition.
	I congratulate the hon. Member, and my friend, for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark), on securing the debate. I also thank the Backbench Business Committee. This is a timely debate, one that those on the Front Bench would do very well to listen to. There were some deep concerns when we supported this measure and I am sad to say that some of them have reared their heads earlier than we might have thought. I therefore agree wholeheartedly that we need action and a review very quickly indeed. I hope this debate will prompt the regulator to pursue that review.
	The starting point of this debate is my belief in fair competition. That was one of the reasons I decided, in the first place, to support the original move to privatise the Post Office. However, fair competition does of course have parameters.

Jo Swinson: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I think it might be helpful to correct that point. The Post Office has absolutely not been privatised. Royal Mail has been privatised. They are two quite separate companies.

Brian Binley: I thank the Front Bench spokesman for that rather pernickety interjection. I will now continue. Of course it has not been privatised—only 70% of its shares have been sold off. We all recognise that point. We know where we are, so there are more serious questions that I would wish the Front Bench spokesman to address, quite frankly. Let us hope we can move on to them.
	Fair competition has parameters that need to be well understood. Fair competition needs to take place with a focus on the public interest first of all. That is a consideration we need to hold very closely to our hearts. It is about making sure that the predatory exploitation of a dominant market position does not harm consumers or undermine others who seek to participate in a competitive environment. There are dangers that cherry-picking does, in truth, undermine that. The context of this debate is making sure that the end-to-end postal services in an urban and suburban setting do not undermine the financial sustainability of the universal service obligation, where in my view the overwhelming public interest can be found.
	The truth of the matter, and this is a pretty heavy warning that I hope those on the Front Bench will take note of, is that if we are not careful and if action is not taken, we will be driven to the point where the universal service becomes a much more limited service, or is driven to the point where prices are so high it puts itself into a state of extinction. I believe there is enough evidence in the marketplace to suggest that those fears need to be taken seriously.
	I believe in the decency of people and especially the decency of the great majority of Royal Mail workers who serve households in every part of the United Kingdom very well. I would like especially to pay tribute to those Royal Mail workers who work, live and provide service in my own constituency of Northampton South. I talk with them very often. I visited them during the passing of the Bill and had sizeable discussions with them—even with Mr Billy Hayes. I pay tribute to him for the way he undertook those discussions. I believe in the basic decency of Royal Mail workers. They are a much-valued part of our national infrastructure. We should give no thought to being anti-union in any way at all, bearing in mind that they have acted in a proper manner and have in many respects taken some pretty heavy knocks from their own specific political point of view. We should pay tribute to them and I am perfectly happy to do so. I repeat that they are a much-valued part of our national infrastructure, especially in the most remote areas.
	It is not just in the rural and remote areas where we should be grateful for Royal Mail. There are many outlying areas in places other than the wilds of Dartmoor and the highlands of Scotland. In fact, near to my town of Northampton, many outlying and very small communities rely totally on the postal service. Very often, the postie fulfils a much more important role in terms of social connection than many of us really understand. I am not sure that the companies that are cherry-picking at the moment understand that point of view. Some of the reports we have had back show that the sorts of workers they are beginning to employ perhaps do not fulfil the criteria that most of us would want our postal service workers to fulfil.
	I have a firm belief in the universal service obligation, underpinned as it is by statute in the Postal Services Act 2011. Indeed, I sponsored an amendment in the Committee stage to secure the obligation for 10 years, rather than the Government’s original proposal of 18 months. I am very proud of having helped to secure that amendment. However, it seems probable that other players in the postal market will, as they have so far, cherry-pick the operations that offer soft opportunities for profit, leaving the Royal Mail with the relatively less attractive deliveries. The question for the Government is the extent to which the goal of competition in the postal services market should be allowed to undermine the viability of the Royal Mail’s balance sheet. If that viability is allowed to be undermined, that would bring the whole question of the USO into serious danger.
	We need to respect the spirit of what was enshrined in the Postal Services Act, as well as the letter of the law. Ofcom needs to ensure that competition in the postal services market does not in any way undermine the USO. That is its task—it is the regulator. I call on it to carry out its duty as we originally intended, both in law and in spirit. The two are not always coincidental. This House is clear that, where a conflict between competition and the USO arises, it is the obligation that should take priority. I hope we will impress that on Ofcom as a result of this debate and in other ways as time passes.
	Royal Mail workers, like our constituents, were clear in what was given to them as a clear undertaking in the 2011 Act. An unequivocal restatement of that commitment from the Dispatch Box would be a very welcome response to this debate. I have a number of questions to put that I hope the Front Bench spokesman will answer in her summing up. First, will the Minister confirm that the USO is enshrined in statute in the 2011 Act? On that basis, would it not require a further Act of Parliament to repeal the obligation?
	Secondly, the market in which Royal Mail operates is subject to cherry-picking from other operators not bound by the USO. The Government have stated that their policy is that competition should not undermine the USO. What discussions has the Minister had with Ofcom on that and on the precedence of the USO contained in the 2011 Act?
	Thirdly, does the Minister accept that the USO rests on the principle of cross-subsidy from the cheaper urban areas towards the greater cost of delivery to rural areas? What change has taken place in the market in the last few years that could alter the balance of competition between Royal Mail and its competitors?
	Fourthly, one factor affecting the distribution of power in the postal market is the price of stamps relative to the prices charged by other deliverers. What assurances can
	consumers expect in future years that Royal Mail’s pricing will reflect the response of postal service users, so as to protect the universal service obligation?
	Fifthly, Ofcom has promised to produce a full assessment of the impact of the universal service obligation and competition in the market for the end of 2015. As it is now four years since the passing of the Act, what assessment has the Minister made of any changes that might compromise the universal service obligation, and what impact does she anticipate Scottish independence would have on the economics of the postal services market? Does the Minister recognise that we need a review sooner rather than later? The whole question of competition has moved on much more quickly than we might have thought when we passed the 2011 Act.
	In conclusion, let me repeat that I supported the 2011 Act, and I still do. However, I also support the need of the regulator to do its job according to law and the spirit of what the Act was trying to do. I therefore call on the Government to ensure that a proper review takes place much sooner rather than later, and to give us an undertaking that the universal service obligation will remain at the forefront of postal services in this country, even though that might mean laying conditions on those who operate competitor services and even, to a certain extent, an understanding that those services need to provide a levy to subsidise the universal service, if that is necessary to retain it.

Peter Hain: I commend the hon. Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley) for the excellent points he made, notwithstanding his support for the privatisation Bill. I hope the Minister listened carefully to them, because they illustrate that this is a cross-party matter. There is a genuine fear about what will happen to the Royal Mail. In making those points, I must apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the House that I will not be here for the wind-ups. As a former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I need to go and answer questions in interviews, following the Northern Ireland statement.
	I was privileged to work for the Union of Post Office Workers—as it was called in the 1970s—for 14 years, into its new incarnation, before I was elected to this House. What has always worried me greatly about the competition regime around the Royal Mail is that it is not a level playing field. The Royal Mail’s competitors are not treated in the same way as the Royal Mail. I believe that poses a great danger to the universal service obligation. It does not pose a danger to its existence, which has been provided for in statute under this Government, as has been pointed out—I am not arguing that—although the universal service obligation is not defined.
	I should say that my criticisms of the competition regime, which has basically stayed the same with the transfer to Ofcom from its predecessor, apply to our previous Labour Government as well and are not simply against this Government. There has been a failure to understand the fundamental problem in this whole matter, which is that Royal Mail has to deliver not just to Swansea or Cardiff from London, which is easy and cheap to do—straight down the M4. Rather, Royal Mail has to deliver up to valley communities in my constituency such as Cwmllynfell or Rhiwfawr, which is
	expensive to do, let alone making deliveries in constituencies represented by hon. Members from Scotland or other parts of Wales, for example, or indeed rural parts of England. That is where the cost comes in. The expensive part of the delivery network is getting things not between city centres, which TNT and other competitors love to do—

Lady Hermon: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Peter Hain: I will in a moment—by the way, this applies to Northern Ireland as well, if the hon. Lady was going to correct me.
	The easy part, which competitor companies such as TNT obviously seize on, is getting pre-sorted business mail, which is provided to them by the businesses themselves, along with large-scale deliveries from banks, credit card companies and so on. They bring it in pre-sorted cassettes and containers, and then TNT or whoever rushes it down the M4 or whatever distribution network they use. That is cheap to do—indeed, often they dump it back into the Royal Mail, so that it has to do the expensive part of delivering to remote areas. That is the problem. I believe it is a matter of urgency—a point made earlier in the debate—that the Government and Ofcom grasp the problem and sort it out. It cannot wait until late next year; that will be too late for the Royal Mail.
	If the delay continues, what I predict will happen to the universal service is this. Yes, it will be there in name, but it will not necessarily apply for six days, because that is not in statute. It will not necessarily apply door to door either, because that is not required on a six-day basis. The universal service is required to apply to every address, but “address” is not defined, as far as I know, over six days, and so on. It is therefore no good sheltering behind the commitment in the 2011 Act to honour the universal service obligation. It is not defined, and when we look at the experience elsewhere—in New Zealand, for example, where a similar process was followed—we find a steady erosion of it.

Lady Hermon: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way and for mentioning the remote areas of Northern Ireland, as well as the remote areas of Wales and Scotland. As he has already mentioned that he is a former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, will he take this opportunity to put on record the enormous sacrifice and courage of postal workers—Royal Mail workers—throughout the worst of the troubles in Northern Ireland? Many paid with their lives, while others were held hostage or very badly injured in bomb explosions. I would just like him to mention that for the record.

Peter Hain: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making that point. She is absolutely right: postal workers—postmen and women—were extremely vulnerable in the terror and the troubles. In some instances they paid with their lives and in others suffered terrible deprivation.
	That brings us back to the value of the posties we all depend on, especially if we do not live in city centres—we depend on them here as well, but they might be posties from organisations other than the Royal Mail. However, we will not find TNT staff delivering up Snowdonia, up
	in the highlands or in some of the remote areas of Northern Ireland, which Royal Mail had to do during the troubles prior to the new regime—a point the hon. Lady rightly draws our attention to.
	Let me emphasise that the problem with this competition regime is that it allows the Royal Mail’s competitors to cherry-pick and cream-skim the most profitable mail. The access charges paid by those competitors to dump their mail back into the Royal Mail, to make sure it gets delivered to the final address when it is in a remote area, are pitifully low. Unless we urgently increase those access charges and unless Ofcom gets out of its sleeping trance on this matter, which the Government might have to instruct it to do, if that is required—I ask the Minister to respond to this point in my absence, for which I again apologise—I fear for the future of the universal service, the quality of that service and the Royal Mail’s ability to provide it, as it is required to do, but which none of its competitors is so required to do.

Diane Abbott: I am glad to have the opportunity to speak about the threat to the universal postal service posed by this defective competition regime and companies such as TNT.
	I must begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) for bringing this subject for debate on the Floor of the House. I should also say that I am probably the only Member of the House—certainly the only one here today—who has actually been a postman, although it was a holiday job and it was a few years ago now.

Peter Hain: Postwoman.

Diane Abbott: Indeed.
	The point I want to make is about how defective the competition regime is. The competition is unfair and where TNT has taken over provision in London, it offers a very poor service. That goes to the heart of a competition regime that is not about a genuine level playing field. TNT does not have the obligations of the Royal Mail; its staff do not have the same qualities or the commitment of Royal Mail staff.
	In London, mail has been dumped under bushes and TNT workers have delivered all the letters to people living in a close through one door, expecting that person to hand them out to their neighbours. As has been mentioned, TNT workers rely on Royal Mail workers to tell them where to go. All that is not only a threat to the universal postal service, but a poor service.
	Something needs to be done about the competition regime so that companies such as TNT are obliged to live up to the obligations that rest on the Royal Mail. Otherwise, the consequence will be not just a threat to the universal postal service in remote areas of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, but a threat to the quality of the postal service that we all enjoy.
	The uniform penny post was established in the British isles in 1840. That was a tremendous innovation and the basis of the historic universal postal service. We all know that letter and parcel deliveries are part of a
	golden thread that ties the British isles together. Even though so many people use e-mail and texts nowadays, we can all think of an important time in our lives when we opened a letter.
	The importance of the postal service in all our lives, and the commitment and professionalism of postmen and postwomen, should not be understated. I had the privilege of visiting my local sorting office in Stamford Hill, Hackney, just before Christmas; many Members visit theirs at that time. I saw how hard postmen work and how much we rely on a stable work force with a commitment to their work and an ongoing knowledge of their areas to provide the service that all our constituents deserve.

Nigel Dodds: I heartily endorse everything that the hon. Lady has said. I visited the sorting office in my area just before Christmas; the operation at Mallusk is fantastic. The issue comes down to trust. People everywhere in the UK trust the Royal Mail. There is not that trust in any other kind of operation. We interfere with that at our peril.

Diane Abbott: I entirely agree. The issue is about people in Government—not just this Government, but any Government—sometimes knowing the cost of everything but the value of nothing. The commitment, professionalism and decades of service of individual postmen in our sorting offices cannot be valued enough. Although the changes may bear down on costs in the short term, in the long term we undermine the quality of the service and, specifically—this is the point of this debate—we put the universal postal service in danger.
	We should really value the unquantifiable aspects of the service that Royal Mail workers provide. We need to stop them being exposed to wholly unfair competition, and the Government and the regulator need to get together as a matter of urgency to do something about the looming threat to the universal postal service.

John McDonnell: These debates are not good for my health. My doctor advises me to stop being so angry about these issues, but I cannot help but be angry about this. The hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir) said that what we are discussing was predicted and therefore predictable. I was in the House 10 years ago when the European directive was debated. There were three Labour Members: me, my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and, I believe, Tony Benn. The new Labour Government were then implementing the European directive with zeal, in advance of virtually every other country in Europe. They were putting our postal service out to privatisation in a way that, as was demonstrated even then in that debate, would eventually lead to the threat to the delivery service. It was inevitable.
	Thank goodness that we now have my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark). The irony 10 years ago was that the former general secretary of the union was then a Minister pushing the legislation through. The Communication Workers Union-associated Members had disappeared that evening; only a limited number of us were here, fighting and arguing in favour of amendments. It was late at night and I remember it well.
	We said that the changes would inevitably result in, first, a threat to the postal service and, secondly, in the full privatisation of the Royal Mail. That has happened. It has been done in such a way that we have lost billions as well. This is why I get so angry—what we have done to the postal service in this country is absolute insanity. I remember well the argument put up then: that we could no longer subsidise Royal Mail. But I am subsidising—we are all subsidising—TNT and others now. They do not pay a living wage, so we are subsiding most of their workers through working tax credits and other benefits. That is the irony.
	What worries me now is that I believe we are at the tipping point. I repeat what the hon. Member for Angus said: if we do not do something soon, it might well be too late. That is why if we do not act very quickly, we might go past the tipping point and lose it, given the time scales and how slowly Ofcom works. My worry is that Ofcom says it monitors what is happening at the moment and does not feel it needs to act at this time, yet it never defines publicly what the tipping point is. Ofcom does not share information that would demonstrate whether the service is under threat or not.
	I listen to the real experts—those whom everyone has cited today and praised to high heaven. They are the people who deliver the mail. They know what is happening on the ground, how they are being undercut by TNT and others and what their prospects are—in the near future, not just the long term. They are saying through their trade union and in direct dialogue that, if we do not act soon, we will lose the universal service.
	There is now an onus on the Government to bring Ofcom in and start immediately on two processes. First, there should be an immediate public review. I would welcome it if the Minister went back to the Secretary of State to say that we need to bring Ofcom in now. I would welcome a public meeting involving Ofcom, us and the Minister so that we had full openness and transparency about the monitoring it is undertaking and how it defines where the tipping point will be. What time scale is it working to?
	The second issue, raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran, is about the support fund. As has been said, the legislation barred any action for five years unless the Secretary of State intervened. We have all said it now: we know that the five-year period is too long because we may well miss the boat if the Secretary of State does not intervene now. Government action is a matter of urgency. I think there would be cross-party support on these two measures. First of all, we should bring in Ofcom to define where it is at in the analysis of the tipping point of the threat; and secondly, we should start the work on the support fund now. I say that because, as other Members have said, it will take a while to put in place, so we should at least start the work now so that if it is needed, it is readily available. If it is not, fair enough; it does not have to be enacted in its final form, but let us at least get the work undertaken now. Otherwise, we will all regret that we did not act sooner.
	The onus, I am afraid, is on the Government. I say that not in a partisan or critical way because I believe I reflect the views of the whole House across the parties in saying that the Government must feel a sense of urgency. Otherwise, we will lose the service that every Member has praised. If that happens, we will be not only letting down the work force of the Royal Mail, but betraying our own constituents as well.

Ian Murray: I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). This is the fifth debate in a row in which I have answered for the Opposition on this subject, and my hon. Friend has always been the last to speak and has been curtailed in his contribution. I hope that he will not listen to his doctor, because we would certainly miss the passion and anger he brings to the Chamber and the good sense that he always talks. I would like to thank, too, the Backbench Business Committee for bringing forward timeously before the summer recess this really important debate. I pay a huge tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) who, beyond anyone else in this place, has kept this issue of Royal Mail and postal services on the agenda. Without her passion and energy, we would not be able to take forward some of the significant contributions that we all want to see on a cross-party basis. The hon. Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley) was quite right to say that this is indeed a cross-party issue.
	It is worth putting the issue into context. It is a six-day, one-price-goes-anywhere service that Royal Mail provides, and its posties deliver to 29 million addresses each day of the week. It is a particularly important service for small businesses as consumers, although we have not spoken much about small businesses in that context today.
	The botched privatisation of Royal Mail, mentioned a number of times this afternoon, cost the taxpayer £1 billion and we have seen the architect of it promoted to Defence Secretary. We have lost a national asset that the public did not want to see privatised. The hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir) was absolutely right to refer to the process in this place. Time and again the Business Secretary has said that “the overarching objective” of privatisation was “to secure” the “universal postal service”. Yet just a few months after that privatisation, we are back here debating the dangers to the universal service obligation. That is why we are calling on the Secretary of State to use any powers he has under section 44 of the Postal Services Act 2011 to try to put pressure on Ofcom to bring this forward, so we can make sure that the USO remains viable.
	We know that the volume of letters is in decline. Last year alone, the volume fell between 4% and 6%. The wonderful work of all Royal Mail’s staff to try to cope with that decline is to be commended, but this does underpin the fragility of the universal service obligation. Its sustainability depends on Royal Mail being able to use the revenues from easier-to-serve urban areas to cover the cost of the nationwide network. It does not require a postal economist to see that the geography of the UK means that delivery to the Scottish islands or to rural Wales is an expensive business and can be sustained only by cross-subsidy from more profitable areas. The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith), my hon. Friends the Members for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) and for North Ayrshire and Arran, the hon. Members for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) and for Angus and my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr Hain), who all represent rural constituencies, mentioned that in their contributions.
	The genesis of this debate is the need to consider the impact that direct end-to-end competition is having on Royal Mail’s ability to sustain the USO. Royal Mail has
	submitted a quite extensive report to Ofcom on the effect of end-to-end competition and the threats to the USO, encouraging Ofcom to bring forward the review promised for 2015. The report says in great detail that the alternative providers, especially TNT, have grown quickly and have plans to expand to over 40% of mail delivery by 2017. This expansion will cover only 8.5% of the geography of the UK. It is this “cherry-picking” of low-cost, profitable inner city postcodes that threatens the economics of the USO.
	These plans have been calculated by Royal Mail to represent an approximate revenue loss of around £200 million, but it is not simply about profitability; it is about the viability of fulfilling its USO. The end-to-end competition issues are magnified by the lack of a level playing field with rival operators. That was mentioned by both my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath and my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott).
	Royal Mail is—rightly, I think—subject to a complicated matrix of delivery standards, reporting and service levels, but the competition is not. For example, rival operators are able to cherry-pick when they deliver. TNT Post UK provides an every-other-day service, which reduces its costs. Rival operators are able to cherry-pick the type of mail they deliver—business mail is the easiest to handle and the most profitable—and they are also able to put mail they do not want to deliver back into the Royal Mail system. As right hon. and hon. Members have said, where they cannot deliver, they need to put it back into the system. That highlights the importance of the universal service to rival operators. They require a viable USO to make their own business models work so it is really important for Ofcom to take that into account in any analysis.
	Royal Mail’s ability to compete on price is constrained, as we have heard this afternoon, and it is unable to alter downstream access prices that now make up almost 50% of all mail volumes. There is an ongoing Ofcom investigation into access pricing, which the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart) mentioned in one of his interventions. Rival operators use a plethora of alternative employment contracts which mean that their staff are lower paid and more insecure than those of Royal Mail. That has the potential to create a race to the bottom in postal services which, in turn, has the potential to undermine the universal service obligation.
	Many Members have referred to TNT Post, because many of the issues that we are discussing are relevant to its business model. I realise that TNT has become a lightning conductor for concern about the liberation of the postal market and the impact that it could have on the USO, but it should be borne in mind that it is operating according to the regulations that currently apply to it. That is why it is important for Ofcom to look at everything in the round. Major issues involving TNT are well documented, but I know that members of its union, Community, are working closely with the company to eradicate zero-hours contracts and introduce the living wage and better conditions for its work force. It is worth emphasising that it would be very much in TNT’s interest as well for Ofcom to conduct its review now.
	We are calling on the Government to pull all the levers that they can possibly pull to encourage Ofcom to bring forward its review. Even if Royal Mail’s arguments,
	contained in the dusty tome that it has submitted to Ofcom, are found not to be wholly valid, or not as compelling as it has suggested—and the hon. Member for Angus implied that they should be tested—that will be known only once they have been fully investigated. Ofcom’s current programme for the review means that we shall have to wait until the end of 2015, and that could be far too late. Those issues were also raised by my favourite Conservative Member of Parliament, the hon. Member for Northampton South. I am sure that there is a keen socialist hiding somewhere in that Conservative body of his.
	If Ofcom began its review now, any recommendations for changes in the regulatory environment could be implemented very quickly to ensure that we do not lose sight of the universal service obligation. There is a danger that the door could be closed after the horse had bolted. Every Member who has spoken today has raised that issue. If Royal Mail is right, the planned 2015 review could be brought forward. Remedial action will be severely limited if that does not happen. Surely it is best for all concerned—Royal Mail, rival providers and, crucially, customers—for the future of the USO to be secured and for what lies on the horizon to be made clear as soon as possible.
	Let me list Labour’s proposals for the future of Royal Mail as we approach the 2015 election. We would secure the USO well beyond 2015; we would prioritise the continuation of the inter-service agreement with the Post Office beyond 2022; we would ensure that there was an appropriate degree of price certainty for Royal Mail and its customers; and we would ensure that regulations provided a level playing field for all operators.

Robert Smith: I am sure that, given the badge that the hon. Gentleman is wearing, he will also point out that by voting “no thanks” in the forthcoming referendum we will maintain the universal service for the whole United Kingdom, ensuring that subsidies continue to go to those difficult areas in Scotland.

Ian Murray: I did not want to go into the independence referendum arguments, for two simple reasons: first, they are incredibly complex, and secondly, the issue is not entirely relevant to the debate. I think that we are all slightly sick of the independence referendum. I hoped that we could be “independence free” today, but perhaps that is not possible after all. However, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Whichever way we view the issue, it is clear from the geography of Scotland that it would be much more difficult and expensive to deliver postal services there following independence. Scotland’s postal services are cross-subsidised because of that geography. That is one very simple argument about what would happen to postal services in an independent Scotland.

Michael Weir: rose—

Ian Murray: I have awoken the beast of Angus. If he will excuse me, I will not give way because of the time constraints—or perhaps I will, just for the sheer fun of it.

Michael Weir: The hon. Gentleman talks of the geography of Scotland, but what we are debating is whether the universal service obligation will continue within the Union. It is the Union that is a danger to the universal
	service throughout the United Kingdom, not Scottish independence. Scotland, like any other country, can run a postal service to suit Scottish needs.

Ian Murray: I think the hon. Gentleman should go to see the doctor that my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) sees and perhaps get some advice on how to calm down a little about the independence referendum.
	I am looking at the time, so I will conclude now by paying tribute to our posties up and down the country. I went on a round last year with Michael Lunn, one of my local posties from the Strathearn road delivery office, in the most tenemental part of my constituency. I can assure hon. Members that it was quite a hard round without lifts in those tenements. Not only did he deliver the mail efficiently, but he knew where people lived, which buzzers to press to get in when people were at work, whether people were on holiday and whether people were expecting parcels. He knew everything about anybody in his round. When we put it in that context, we see that it is not just a postal service; it is a service to all our communities. It is a valuable social service that we should make sure we do not jeopardise, because if we do, that will be detrimental to everyone in the country.

Jo Swinson: It is a pleasure to respond to today’s constructive debate. I very much congratulate the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) on securing it. As a fellow proud Scot, I am pleased that so many Scottish Members have contributed to it, but I am also pleased that all four nations of the United Kingdom have been represented.
	The issues I wish to touch on in my summing up are: the importance of the USO; the concerns raised by various hon. Members about competition; and the Ofcom review, which is the main subject of the motion. We have heard from Members from all parts of the House about how vital the universal service is for rural areas. The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid), and the hon. Members for North Ayrshire and Arran and for Angus (Mr Weir) all made points about that eloquently. We were reminded by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley) that this is not purely a rural issue, as the universal service is vital to many towns and suburban areas. It is right that postal workers are held in great esteem in many communities, as the service is hugely important not only to our local economies, but more widely, in society and in communities. That is why, as my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute pointed out, we have set out the USO in primary legislation—my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey), made sure it was written into the Postal Services Act 2011.
	I appreciate that the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain) is no longer able to be in his place, but I am sure he will read my remarks in Hansard in order to follow the reassurances I can give about his concerns on the definition of the delivery of a six-day-a-week service to every address. He seemed to take the view that that was not a significantly well-defined definition. Section 31
	sets out what must, as a minimum, be included in the USO. On the delivery of letters and other postal packets it states:
	“At least one delivery of letters every Monday to Saturday—
	(a) to the home or premises of every individual or other person in the United Kingdom, or
	(b) to such identifiable points for the delivery of postal packets as OFCOM may approve.”
	Clearly there are very few addresses that are, for whatever reason, inaccessible and for which Ofcom can, in those extreme cases, approve a collection point. That definition is very clear, we should be reassured by it, and it is right that this House and the other place have prioritised it by making sure it is in primary legislation.

Michael Weir: I understand what the Minister is saying and I acknowledged that this was the first time the USO was in legislation. Let us consider one thing that Ofcom can do in a review. I believe that section 43(8) states that its
	“recommended action may consist of one or more of the following—
	(a) the carrying out of a review under section 33 (review of minimum requirements)”.
	So if Ofcom does carry out a review under the Act, it could recommend a reduction in the minimum requirements. Will she assure us that she will not accept any such reduction?

Jo Swinson: I am delighted to do so. I have given such assurances from this Dispatch Box, as colleagues have done. Speaking for my party going into the next general election campaign, I can say that that will be our position, and I am sure that other parties can also give their assurances on that. I think that there is absolute consensus across the House that that is vital and should be protected. So it is not something that would be changed. In addition, as we have discussed in the debate, to do so would require a vote in both Houses of Parliament, and that is a significant protection. I hope that that reassures the House on the importance the Government attach to the USO.
	Members also raised concerns about cherry-picking and end-to-end competition. Of course competition is not new in postal delivery. It has been more than 10 years now since the EU postal services directive opened up the market. At the beginning, the effect was felt much more significantly in the collection and sorting of mail, with Royal Mail still being responsible for the final mile. That is the area in which there has been more competition.
	The right hon. Member for Neath was right to highlight the fact that the expensive parts of postal delivery are to the address not in central London, central Swansea or central Glasgow but in those much more inaccessible, remote locations, where the costs are significant. Of course the principle of cross-subsidy, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South, is a crucial part of how the universal service can be delivered. One of the ways in which the structure is created so that that cross subsidy can continue is for Royal Mail to have a lot of flexibility—much more than it used to have—to charge different prices to different operators. It can also use zonal pricing so that it can charge more for delivery to remote rural areas when it is being used for that final mail delivery, which accounts for the vast majority of competition that exists within
	the mail delivery market. That enables it to recoup the costs that it incurs from providing that universal service.
	Competition can clearly help to drive efficiency, which I am sure people would agree is a positive thing, but it stands to reason that if that competition took a significant portion of the market, especially in terms of end-to-end competition, it could have an impact on the universal service. That is because zonal pricing is particularly related to the competition that exists when Royal Mail is still delivering the final mile. That is why we have put in place a regime in which Ofcom monitors both the situation and what is happening in the postal market. If necessary, it has further powers to act to level the playing field.
	I just want to touch briefly on the quantum that we are talking about today. Members have mentioned TNT delivery, but in the last full year, in 2013, 14.6 billion items were delivered—that is the size of the mail market. Of those 14.6 billion items, 14.544 billion of them were delivered by Royal Mail. I am not saying that Members are wrong to be concerned, but I want to put the matter in context. We are talking about a very small portion, 0.38%, of the overall mail market. Members were right to say that it has grown quickly. In 2012, it was 0.11% of the market. Within the space of a year, the volume of items delivered in end-to-end competition more than tripled. It is important that this issue is looked at closely by Ofcom and that it is kept under review.
	My hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) pointed out that perhaps Royal Mail needs to have time to adapt to changes. It is clear that we need to keep our eye on the rate of growth, but we are not yet talking about a level or a volume that would cause concern about the impact on the profitability of Royal Mail. Even Royal Mail accepts that the concern is more to do with the potential for that to happen rather than the situation as it is at the moment.
	I just want to clarify which review we are talking about today. Two different reviews are being talked about. Some Members have mentioned section 44. I think that the hon. Member for Angus was looking at a copy of the Bill, because by the time that Bill became an Act, it was section 44 rather than 43. That is the review of the financial burden of the universal service on the provider that Ofcom can be directed to undertake by the Secretary of State. That is not the same as the review that Royal Mail is currently asking for, which is about end-to-end competition. That review is something that Ofcom has said that, as part of its wider monitoring regime, it will do in any event by the end of next year, but it is happy to bring it forward if necessary. This is an area in which there is no specific Government power to direct. I hope to reassure the House on this point.
	There is a clear desire for Ofcom to keep a close eye on the impact of competition on the universal service. It seems that there is almost an assumption that that is not currently being considered, but I can tell the House that that is absolutely not the case. I have spoken to Ed Richards, who is in charge of Ofcom, and, as it happens, I will be meeting him later today, which is good timing. Ofcom is clear that it is monitoring the situation in the mail market carefully and intensely. It is not waiting until the end of next year; it is doing so on a monthly
	basis and is very much on the case, ensuring that it has the information. It also has the power to get access to much more detail than any individual player in the market, having access not only to the details of Royal Mail’s financial position, but also to the business plans of TNT and any other providers, so its visibility is excellent. The review will be started by the end of next year at the latest, but Ofcom has said that it is happy to start earlier if it sees any reason for market changes or any financial impact on the universal service that would mean that it needs to be started earlier.
	I am conscious of the time, so I will not stray into the Scottish independence issues, tempted though I am to do so. The exchange between the hon. Members for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) and for Angus set out that the matter is relevant and that there would be consequences in an independent Scotland for deliverability and the price of the postal service.
	I want to finish by picking up on the point made by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), because he made a sensible and constructive suggestion that, given the level of interest in the House, which is clear from the debate’s attendance and from the correspondence that I receive as a Minister, it would be helpful for Ofcom to be able to meet MPs to discuss the issue. It is clear that the appetite is there and it would be useful for the regulator to hear MPs’ concerns directly and not just through Hansard. It would also be useful for hon. Members to be able to have a frank discussion with Ofcom about its approach, which I believe would lead to a great deal of reassurance. As I said, I will be meeting Ofcom later this afternoon and so will have the perfect opportunity to put that request. I look forward to hearing the response of the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran to the debate.

Katy Clark: The debate has been extremely useful. I hope that what the Minister says in private is slightly different from what she has said in public today, because she has shown a level of complacency that was not seen in the contributions of Back-Bench Members on both sides of the House. There is a huge amount of concern about the speed at which TNT is expanding its service in the UK and about the impact that that could have on the universal service. I am interested that the Minister is meeting Ofcom later today and welcome the suggestion that Ofcom meet hon. Members, which would be useful. It would also be helpful if Ministers attended the meeting, so I would be grateful if she undertook to do so.
	The Minister says that only a small proportion of work is currently undertaken by operators other than Royal Mail, which I made clear in my opening contribution. However, the concern is that TNT’s proposals, which are publicly available and which most hon. Members here have already seen, make clear the speed at which it will expand in this country. As a result, it will be covering a huge number—over 40%—of households, which is different from anything that the House discussed in the various debates that took place—

Brian Binley: rose—

Katy Clark: I am not sure whether I am able to take interventions when making a closing speech, but if I could allow anybody, it would be the hon. Gentleman given his track record on this issue.
	Yes, we have had 10 years of competition, but the lesson that we have learned is that the market does not respond well to competition. The current regime is not protecting the services that we receive. The reality is that we have fewer services now than we did when competition came in. We all remember Sunday collections and twice-a-day deliveries. The road that we are on is extremely dangerous and is a threat to postal services in all parts of the UK. I hope that the Government will take on board the emotion and passion of hon. Members’ contributions today and insist that Ofcom urgently carry out a speedy review.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House believes that the Universal Service Obligation as set out in the Postal Services Act 2011 is under threat from unfair competition from organisations which are rapidly expanding end-to-end delivery services in low-cost, high-density urban areas while leaving high-cost, low-density rural areas to be covered by Royal Mail, the universal service provider; and calls on the Government to instruct Ofcom to bring forward proposals to protect the Universal Service Obligation and the commercial viability of Royal Mail against this threat.

Children with Autism (Education)

Gordon Birtwistle: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered the provision of education for children with autism.
	It is a privilege to introduce this debate on the provision of proper schooling for children with autism. I first considered securing such a debate when I was approached by a number of families in my constituency. I asked a question of the then Secretary of State for Education, who agreed that I could meet the Minister, which I did. Following that, I was approached by a number of my constituents who asked me to secure today’s debate. I am delighted to have achieved that and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing it. I am pleased that there are a number of Members in the Chamber today who wish to debate this important subject.
	This debate is important in identifying for the Minister the horrifying ongoing struggles, about which my constituents have certainly told me, that children with autism face in getting appropriate education. As a result of poor local provision and unofficial exclusions, thousands of children with autism do not access full-time education. If a young person’s needs are not understood or met, that has both short and long-term implications, which, as my constituents’ experience highlights, can be severe.
	We are all aware that autism is a lifelong developmental disability that affects how a person communicates and makes sense of the world around them. It is a spectrum condition, meaning that it affects people in different ways, making awareness and diagnosis even more important. Some children have mild autism and some have severe autism and the idea that one education system fits all does not work. That is one of the major issues that I hope to put forward today for consideration, and I hope that the Minister will look into it in the future.

Henry Smith: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. Will he join me in congratulating the many important local community groups that support children with autism, such as Autism Support Crawley and Autism Sussex, on the help that they give to parents in dealing with the education system, which, as he rightly points out, differs from local authority to local authority?

Gordon Birtwistle: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes a valid point. In my constituency, there are many people, such as church groups and voluntary groups, who do just that. However, we need the local education authorities to recognise the problems. Children with autism, like children without autism, should have an equal right to access good-quality full-time education.
	Let me look directly at my own constituency, which is in Lancashire. Lancashire county council, in my view and in that of my constituents, has failed to ensure appropriate education and support are provided for numerous autistic children. I will give three examples later in my speech. To put it simply, its oversight is causing too many children with autism to miss out on much of their valuable education. Despite local authorities holding the legal responsibility to ensure that all children
	with special educational needs in their area are identified and supported, it is evident that that is not being fulfilled. In Lancashire no one is accepting responsibility or taking the time to understand the needs of these children. That is happening across the country, so many of the 70,000 school-age children in England are not accessing the education they need to learn, achieve and, more importantly, thrive.
	I draw the attention of the House to three of my constituents. One of the cases is especially moving. When I first heard about it, I was distressed, to say the least. It concerns a young lady named Chloe, who is 17 years old. She is now on suicide watch as a result of repeatedly being failed by Lancashire county council since the age of 11. The detrimental impact of Chloe’s lack of education and development as an individual is clear. She was threatened with exclusion from her mainstream school placements up to the age of 13, when she was finally diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and autism.
	Children with statements of special educational needs are eight times more likely to be excluded than their peers, and children with no statement are 11 times more likely to be excluded. When Chloe was 14 her family was advised that she would receive a statutory assessment of her educational needs. Lancashire county council failed to undertake this, despite it being recommended by professionals and her parents’ insistence. It took years—not weeks or months, but years—for Lancashire county council educational psychologist Yakub Padia to assess Chloe. After a 20-minute consultation he disagreed with the findings of experienced psychologists who had spent prolonged periods with her, and it was recommended that she be placed in a pupil referral unit, rather than the specialist school recommended by the professionals. Lancashire county council disregarded this and even the advice of the head of the pupil referral unit, who thought it was not suitable for Chloe.
	As a teenager Chloe was passed from pillar to post, with a total lack of accurate assessment. Lancashire county council let her down. Chloe felt worthless and rejected. That led her to self-harm and to suffer from depression. She has ended up in a specialist psychiatric unit on suicide watch. Her brothers have had to watch her attempt to hang herself in the family home. Chloe is now emotionally and mentally damaged. Without question, missing out on education leads to poor life outcomes for the child involved and for their families. Chloe’s mum is one of the 50% of parents of disabled children who say they have had to take up part-time work as a result of their child’s exclusion. Chloe is a very sad case.

Steve Rotheram: I congratulate the hon. Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle) on bringing this important issue to the attention of the House. I was hoping he would go on to paint a picture of how we as parliamentarians can help to destigmatise the condition and break down some of the barriers that people face in their everyday lives in respect of employment and perhaps even diagnosis of their condition. All we have heard up till now is an attack on Lancashire county council. I hope the hon. Gentleman will focus on what we as parliamentarians can do to assist people who have the condition.

Gordon Birtwistle: I am grateful for the intervention. I am trying to explain that people with autism are born with autism. I am trying to find a reason why, in education, we cannot accept this—as a disease or an illness—and work with the families and the children who suffer from this appalling disease. I have met the head of a school not in my constituency, but close by, called Rossendale school. The head said that he could resolve the problem and he has proved that. He has a way of doing that. Unfortunately, Lancashire county council—the hon. Gentleman says that I should not be having a go at it—does not accept that and will not work with the school, which I find pretty hideous, because they need to do things like that.

Mark Hendrick: I remind the hon. Gentleman that Lancashire county council has 1,435 children and young people suffering from autism spectrum disorder and, as he will hear in my speech, does an excellent job. He omitted from his remarks the fact that Rossendale is a private school and that the council provides excellent state facilities, with specialist experts, and can make that provision available, but he—I am sure that he will expand on this later—is insisting on private education when public education is adequate.

Gordon Birtwistle: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks, but the families of the children I am talking about would totally disagree—they will no doubt be happy to meet him later to explain the serious problems they are having. I am not pushing for private education. Rossendale might well be a private school, and so too might one or two others. All I am saying is that if Rossendale can provide it, why can Lancashire county council not do the same through the state system? Why can the council not be just as good as Rossendale? I do not want to promote a private school; I want to promote extremely good education for my constituents.

Barry Sheerman: The hon. Gentleman—it is difficult not to call him my hon. Friend—will know of my interest in this subject. I am sorry that I arrived a little late to this debate; I was chairing a committee at the other end of the building. I am delighted that he is making this speech. I want to make the point, having chaired the Education Committee when it conducted a major inquiry into special educational needs, that the lack of early diagnosis and early access to psychological and mental health therapy is a problem up and down the country, not just in Lancashire. The length of time it can take for a child suspected of having such a condition to be evaluated and then given the support they need is a national disgrace.

Gordon Birtwistle: I thank the hon. Gentleman. I could not have put it better myself. That is the argument I am making. We are having this debate because I was approached by three families in my constituency. I had thought that this was a small issue. I did not anticipate the flood of e-mails and correspondence I received, and not only from Lancashire, but from all over the country. I agree with it 100%.
	We can sit here all day long saying that this is happening all over the country, but what are we doing about it? We need to do something. Why are children with autism and ADHD being tret in that way? As the hon. Member
	for Preston (Mark Hendrick) has said, Lancashire county council provides education to more than 1,400 young people with autism spectrum disorder, but why are my constituents, who are up in the Gallery, being tret differently from anybody else? Why does the council not treat them in the same way? Why are their children totally different from somebody else’s? Why do they have to suffer? Why does Chloe’s mother have to suffer in that way while other parents do not?
	If Lancashire county council delivers such a great service, as the hon. Gentleman says, why is it letting Chloe and her mother down? That is my issue today. I am happy for Lancashire county council to deliver the best service available in the country, but it has to be for everybody, not just the few. My purpose today is to raise the issue with the Minister and ask him to look into it and take it forward.

Edward Leigh: My hon. Friend is doing a great service to this cause just by raising it, so he should be proud of himself. Surely the answer to Labour Members’ interventions is that it is a question not of state or private but of looking at each case individually. If a private school happens to be more appropriate, there should not be bias against the fact that it is a private school. We should look at what is best for the child, should we not?

Gordon Birtwistle: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I will shortly come to a case where I got involved in talking about private or public provision and heard stories from the staff at the county council.
	The next case is that of a young man called Jack Entwistle, a nine-year-old autistic boy who should currently be enjoying his school holidays but, unfortunately, has already been out of education for three months. He is at a critical age educationally and developmentally, but so far he has been failed by the county council. This is not just about Lancashire county council—it will be happening all over, but I have not met anybody from any other county council area with similar experiences.

Barry Sheerman: rose—

Gordon Birtwistle: It might be happening in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency; in fact, I am sure it is. I have been to Huddersfield, and it is a beautiful place that I would always be happy to visit, but I can talk only about the people I know.

Barry Sheerman: May I tempt the hon. Gentleman, who is an old friend of mine, to be more forensic? We need to do better—all of us here in the Chamber today who care about this. He is right: we all see similar cases in our constituency advice services. The real problem, right across the country, is proper early diagnosis, whether in the private or the state sector—it does not matter. What the parents want is early diagnosis so that support and intervention can then take place and the child has a chance to develop their spark of potential in the very best way. We are talking about some very, very clever kids who need support really early on in their careers. If we can share, forensically, information about where the barriers are and why early diagnosis is not taking place, we can be much more effective. We have here a very good Minister who partly trained on my Select Committee at one stage. I know that he is good on this and cares about it, and we can make a compelling case to him.

Gordon Birtwistle: I agree with everything that has been said. Why cannot these diagnoses be done quickly? Why cannot we solve these problems?
	Jack received a statement of educational needs at the age of three due to his prematurity and his visual impairment, so his parents should have received adequate support and his needs should have been met as he wanted. Conversely, he has been subjected to humiliation in the school environment, with unfair treatment by a teaching assistant and his recent forced removal from the mainstream school that he had attended for four years. Jack was officially diagnosed with autism in 2012 when he was seven, but he had a problem when he was three. The school declared that it could no longer cope with Jack, who struggled with the transition from infants to juniors.
	After several meetings with the county council education authority, Jack’s parents worked well with the school—a state school—to create a suitable environment with the input of a teaching assistant providing additional facilities. Jack thrived and his marks improved. However, the county council has taken away the special needs teacher and now he cannot manage at school. His parents have no trust in placing him in this environment and are currently appealing against his placement. It is wrong that the county council, instead of encouraging Jack’s development, has not considered all his needs. That is what it is all about—considering the child’s needs.
	It is more than alarming that the parents had to face more battles to get the county council to amend Jack’s statement to include autism as part of its diagnosis. Why should the parents have to argue with the experts to get a proper diagnosis of the child’s illness? Why on earth do they have to do this? Is it not delivered automatically? Are we not paying the experts within the education authority to deliver this service to my constituents—the parents and the child? That is the big problem.

Steve Rotheram: I want to go back a step or two and express my gratitude to the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue, but not necessarily for the manner in which he is doing so. He is, of course, absolutely right to illustrate the cases of his individual constituents, but an immediate member of my family who has autism went through a similar experience to the one he is describing when Liverpool had a Liberal Democrat council. I say that not because I want to make a party political point, but because this is widespread and happens all the time. We have to understand that this is a condition—it is not a disease—with a spectrum of different conditions within it. It is very complex. That is why early diagnosis and assessment followed by a support package based on the individual needs of the child is the most important thing we can do. I hope we will get to the point where we can work with the Government to see what we need to do better to enable people to get the best start possible in life.

Gordon Birtwistle: I am grateful for that intervention. My only aim is that we all work with the Government and education authorities to come to a conclusion on how to address early diagnosis and to deliver for these young people—who in the main have amazing talents—educational facilities that will take them on, help them succeed and be superb members of the community, and
	enable them to live normal lives. My argument is that we are not doing that, and the hon. Gentleman obviously agrees with me.

Ian Murray: The education system in Scotland is devolved, but, as has been said, this is a problem across the country, because the condition is prevalent across the country. Does he agree that this is not just about local authorities and that there should be proper training for the teaching profession? There is also a body of work to be done on teaching schoolchildren to treat those in their classes who have autism slightly differently and to be a more aware of their condition so that they can thrive in a mainstream environment.

Gordon Birtwistle: Absolutely. I pretty much agree with everything that has been said and most people seem to agree with what I am saying. My argument is that, although the hon. Members for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) and for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) and my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) have all made amazing suggestions, we do not act on them. While we sit here and talk, why are thousands of young people and families across the country suffering? I have met some of those families and they are at the edge of life. It should not have to be like that. Proper facilities should be provided.

Barry Sheerman: This is the first time I have risen to make an intervention in this House to say something positively nice about the Government: the Children and Families Act 2014, which was recently passed, met an aspiration that I had had for many years, namely that someone diagnosed with special educational needs will have a special relationship with evaluation until they are 25. That is wonderful and we should pay tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson) and the Government for it. The sensitive issue, however, is what has happened to services such as child and adolescent mental health services, which seem to be falling apart up and down the country, but the Government are not reacting to that.

Gordon Birtwistle: I am grateful for that intervention and I will address the hon. Gentleman’s comments when I come to the end of my contribution.
	Thirdly, I want to talk about a little girl called Honey, who is the daughter of a constituent of mine with a hairdressing salon near my office in Burnley. She is a lovely, lively little girl—she spends time in my office on occasion—who has very mild autism. She had to be moved six months into her final year in primary school due to trauma and threat of exclusion. Basically, she was classed as a naughty girl.
	Honey’s new primary school quickly established the need for a statement of educational needs—why had it not been picked up earlier?—and had evidence from an independent educational psychologist to present to the panel. Once again, however, the Lancashire county council educational psychologist reassessed Honey and challenged the independent assessment.
	No secondary school place has been arranged for Honey, despite her parents choosing Rossendale school. There may be other schools that are as good as that
	independent school, but Rossendale is one of the few providers catering for high-functioning ASD children in Lancashire. Honey’s parents’ preference for Rossendale was put to a panel, which rejected it. The panel suggested a special school for severely disabled children, which was named without the parents’ agreement.
	Lancashire county council advised the family to look at other options, but every time the family went back to the panel, their wishes were rejected. Naturally, that has had an effect on Honey’s self-esteem, and her anxieties have increased by the rejection of her choice of school. The family therefore appealed to SENDIST––the special educational needs and disability tribunal—against the named school, and asked for Rossendale school to be named. Honey has been in front of a judge, to whom she outlined her future aspirations, of which she has many. However, the family has had no success in integrating her into the school she suggested.
	Honey has anxieties and fears connected with the named school. She has now been out of school for more than 12 months, which is detrimental to her health and education. Despite her parents’ request for an annual review, that has been overlooked. Such requests should be considered natural: if somebody asks for a review, it should be accepted.
	When I have attempted to speak to the county council about this matter, I have been told many stories. The lady in charge, Charlotte Finch, the SEND integrated assessment team manager, has given me confusing statements about whether Honey or any child for that matter can attend Rossendale independent school or another school of the same quality. She said that no child from Lancashire is to attend the school, but the head of the school has since told me that that is not true. Lancashire county council do send children to Rossendale school, but when I spoke to the council I was told that it did not. Such treatment has created hostility between the child’s family and the council.
	Most education authorities, including Lancashire, fail to appreciate and understand the needs of autistic children that I, like countless others, have described. I must stress that those are the first three cases I was approached to help with that I have time to deal with in this debate, but they are by no means my only cases. I have been inundated—and, indeed, saddened—by cases of the many families across Lancashire and the whole country who are suffering the same plight.
	Autism must be understood, as must the child in question. Information provided by Lancashire county council and other authorities suggests that they do not have data about the number of children with autism who are out of school. The way in which they store the data means that they cannot be broken down by disability, which is clearly a problem in itself.
	Furthermore, there is evidently a problem with Lancashire county council’s approach to autism. According to information that I obtained from an individual involved in a professional capacity with the council, in March the head of inclusion and disability, Sally Riley, held an information and training morning for all school staff about the new SEN code, which has been mentioned today. During it, the number of tribunals was discussed, as was the council’s success in winning them. For me, that is the wrong way round: it is not for the council to win a tribunal against a child; the child should win the tribunal because otherwise they are put out of school.
	Why do tribunals not understand that children need help? I would be delighted if such a department head at the county council stood up and said, “I’m sorry. We’ve failed every tribunal, and every child has got the school they need.” Unfortunately, however, what is happening is the other way around. The figures highlighted that the council had won more than they had lost, which is disgraceful.
	We are running short of time and many other Members wish to speak in this debate, so I will conclude. One big problem is that the family members of children in Burnley have rapidly lost confidence in the education department of Lancashire county council, just as, I am sure, families across the country lose confidence in their education authorities. We need to do something to resolve that situation. I hope that after this debate the Minister will take up the cudgel for children with autism, particularly those in my constituency. As the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) said, we need to find out what the problems are earlier and deliver the services sooner. I hope that the Minister will take that up.

Mark Hendrick: I congratulate the hon. Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle) on securing this important debate on an issue that is close to the hearts of many Members who are in the Chamber.
	Although the hon. Gentleman might not have intended for his speech to be seen as an attack on Lancashire county council, he made many serious accusations against it. As the council is not here in any capacity to defend itself, I think it is important that I respond, as somebody who has spoken to people from the area and county councillors about some of the matters that he has raised.
	In Lancashire, 1,435 children and young people have autism spectrum disorder, which is commonly referred to as ASD. Of those children, 1,129 have a statement and 306 are on School Action Plus. Some 698 of those children are placed in mainstream primary and secondary schools, 596 are placed in maintained special schools and 141 are placed in independent, non-maintained special schools. As one can tell from those figures, the three cases that the hon. Gentleman mentioned are very much in a minority and could not, through any statistical analysis, be considered to be indicative of the type of treatment that is going on across Lancashire county council.

Gordon Birtwistle: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the minority should just be left? Surely all children should receive the same. Is he saying that Lancashire county council has delivered for a lot of people, but not for a minority of people? Should that minority just be left on the scrap heap? Surely he is not suggesting that.

Mark Hendrick: Of course I am not suggesting that. I am suggesting that everybody should have the best possible treatment. I want the three cases that the hon. Gentleman presented to be seen not as the norm, but as the exception. All children deserve the best that Lancashire county council can possibly give them. However, given that Lancashire county council has 1,435 children and young people with autism, I would not want three to be considered to be the norm.

Steve Rotheram: We must all agree, as parliamentarians, that the distressing picture that was painted of the cases of Chloe, Jack and Honey is worrying. We could all bring similar cases to the House. I hope that what we will achieve is to help the family members and carers of people on the autistic spectrum by highlighting programmes such as Autism Initiatives in Liverpool, which provides a signposting service so that family members can get support and access early intervention, assessment and diagnosis. That is essential because autism stays with people for their whole lives, not just when they are at school.

Mark Hendrick: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I will go on to speak about the work that Lancashire county council is doing in that area. I would be grateful to hear about his experiences in Liverpool if he makes a contribution later.
	Lancashire county council also makes provision for short breaks for children with ASD. It has commissioned more than £182,000 of short breaks provision from local specialist autism services, to provide activities for children during evenings, weekends and school holidays, while also providing their parents and carers with breaks from caring. The most recent attainment data at the end of key stage 2 show that 73% of children with ASD made two levels of progress in English, compared with 94% of all pupils, and that 69% of children with ASD made two levels of progress in mathematics, compared with 93% of all pupils. Given those pupils’ conditions, that is a tremendous achievement. Of children who are statemented with ASD and took GCSEs in mainstream schools between 2011 and 2013, 75% gained five A to C grades, including English and maths, which is well above the national average of 60.8% for all children during the same period.
	Lancashire schools have access to considerable expertise on autism provided by specialist advisory teachers and educational psychologists. That is supplemented by rapidly developing school-to-school support, where centres of expertise based at special schools provide an increasing range of guidance and support to their colleagues in primary and secondary schools.
	For children and young people with more complex autism, Lancashire’s special schools have developed much greater expertise. All special schools for generic learning difficulties are funded to meet as wide a range of special educational needs as possible. They are all able to provide for pupils with autism, and several have chosen to specialise in autism by developing staff training programmes and allocating substantially increased resources to that specialism. In several cases that has been recognised by Ofsted inspectors.
	The hon. Member for Burnley raised issues on behalf of three of his constituents where parents are seeking what is effectively private school education for their children who have autism. The council has identified provision in at least two of our maintained special schools, which are judged by Ofsted to be good and outstanding. In those cases, parents have appealed to the first and upper tier tribunals, which have found in favour of the council—he made that point—and directed that the children go to the maintained special schools. The outcome of a further appeal to the upper tribunal by one of the families is awaited.
	All Lancashire’s special schools for learning difficulties —23 in total—are rated as good or better by Ofsted. I fully appreciate that parents, particularly of the three children involved, want to fight for what they see as the best opportunities and outcomes for their children—the hon. Gentleman would want that, as would I. However, the recent behaviour, language and actions of those involved—by that I am referring to the hon. Gentleman—has caused considerable anxiety for many families, while also conveying a partial view of the provision made by the council. For schools that are doing a great deal of good work in this area, the constant bombardment by him in the Lancashire press about those schools and the county council is causing considerable anxiety, not only among staff at those special schools, but among many of the parents of children who go to them. It is one thing to represent parents who are concerned about their children—he is entitled to do that—but that also has an effect, rightly or wrongly, on children and parents in other schools where the council is providing good teaching and provision.
	On a number of occasions the hon. Gentleman also suggested that Lancashire county council officers have not been completely truthful about their approach to considering parents’ expressions of preference for special educational placements in independent non-maintained special schools, but the council refutes those allegations.
	On the specific examples outlined by the hon. Gentleman, the case of Chloe Wold is a tragedy. Nobody looking at the record could say anything other than that. I concur completely with him about her situation. She has been in this condition for some time and is on suicide watch, and I sympathise totally with the parents in this case.

Gordon Birtwistle: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman is saying. He has obviously been well briefed by the county council and is answering the debate on its behalf. However, this debate is on autism in schools. I do not understand where he is coming from. I do not really want him to answer on behalf of the county council. I want to listen to his solutions to the problems that my constituents are suffering.

Mark Hendrick: The hon. Gentleman made some fairly serious allegations against the county council and I have received information from the county council that refutes those allegations. If he does not want to listen to that, that is a matter for him. If he wishes to leave the Chamber that is up to him, but I have every right to make these points.

Eleanor Laing: Order. This debate is not about a county council; neither is it about party politics or opinions about party politics in a particular part of the country. It is a very serious debate on a serious issue that affects the whole country. So far, everyone who has spoken has been perfectly in order. If the hon. Gentleman who now holds the floor wishes to continue his speech, the hon. Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle), who has already held the floor for a considerable time, really ought to allow him to do so. He is in order.

Mark Hendrick: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman will concur that I was totally in agreement with and sympathetic to the points he made with regard to Chloe Wold. If he is willing to listen to me when he agrees with me but not when he disagrees with me, that is a matter for him.
	On the second of the three cases raised by the hon. Gentleman, the school that Jack Entwistle was offered is Pendle View primary school. I will not go into great detail about the expertise and everything else the school offers, but I will quote Ofsted:
	“Those pupils who have additional sensory support also make excellent progress, often in short periods of time, because of the high quality and intense support they get.”
	The local MP, the hon. Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson), visited the school on Friday 15 November 2013. He toured the school and discussed the provision for pupils with special educational needs. He was very supportive and impressed with the work of the school and the specialisms that Lancashire county council provides for children with special educational needs at that school in particular. That gives the other side of the story about the school that Jack Entwistle was offered.
	On the final case, Honey Crossley was offered a place at Broadfield specialist school, a Lancashire county council-maintained secondary school. Ofsted said:
	“The school’s expertise in promoting learning for students with autism is extensively recognised and respected by many local schools.”
	Although the hon. Member for Burnley did not mention this, I understand that he met the Minister—

Eleanor Laing: Order. I am listening very carefully and there is a dialogue going on between two Members of the House. This is a very serious and open debate about a general issue that affects hundreds of thousands of children throughout the whole country. The hon. Gentleman ought to be careful before he quotes another Member who has not said in the House today what he is about to quote him as saying. I warn the hon. Gentleman to be careful and to remain in order. If he wishes to take up a point that the hon. Member for Burnley has made, that is a different matter.

Mark Hendrick: I would make no attempt to address the hon. Member for Burnley other than through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, so it is not a dialogue in the way you indicated.
	I will not quote from the Minister concerned. What I will say is that Lancashire county council has received correspondence from that Minister, who confirmed that Lancashire county council’s advice was that the appropriate way forward for parents was through SENDIST, the special educational needs and disability tribunal system, which is on offer to the constituents of the hon. Member for Burnley.
	I think I have made the points that would have been made had other people been here for the debate.

Stephen McCabe: I think this is my third meeting with the Minister today. I did not appreciate when we first met at a certain by-election some years ago that our paths were destined to cross quite so often, but it is always a pleasure to see him.
	Let me begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle) on securing this debate, which is timely on a day when we have just agreed a new draft special educational needs and disability code of practice. He is right to be concerned about the schooling provision for children with autism. I am advised that there are at least 70,000 children with autism living in England, and they deserve access to high quality, full-time education. The hon. Gentleman’s description of the problems his constituents face, particularly Chloe, in obtaining proper assessments and appropriate schooling are sadly all too familiar—a point reinforced by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), who obviously has a great deal of experience in this area. Early diagnosis is crucial and will become one of the first tests of the Children and Families Act 2014. Will it improve early identification and diagnosis of a child’s difficulties and will the child’s needs be properly considered? As I understand it, it is not for a local authority to select the school; rather, it is the job of the local authority to offer and engage with a range of provision, so that a child can attend the school best suited to their needs.

Mark Hendrick: As I said in my speech, Lancashire county council has 23 such schools. It was in no way indicating any individual school, but did offer a number of schools in several cases.

Stephen McCabe: I note that my hon. Friend has made that point.
	Research by Ambitious about Autism has found that about 40% of children with autism have been excluded from school on at least one occasion without any valid reason being offered. Many are excluded much more often, of course, and some schools appear to operate a policy of informal exclusion, which makes it difficult for any of us to form an accurate picture of what exactly is happening. We do know that the practice is illegal. I acknowledge the Government’s work in funding exclusion advisers, with their grant to the National Autistic Society. I hope that will help us address the problem of those exclusions.
	As the Minister will know, Ambitious about Autism is currently campaigning for every school to have access to an autism specialist teacher. We should try to meet that objective because I am certain that exclusions often result from staff who genuinely do not know what is required of them and feel that they are ill equipped to cope with an autistic child’s particular needs. Obviously, the special educational needs co-ordinator is the key figure in the school, charged with ensuring that appropriate support and assistance is made available to every child with a special need, whether or not they are subject to a statement or an education health and care plan.

Bob Stewart: I would be surprised if any child with special needs was excluded from school without someone with specialist knowledge having had a look at them. I am assuming that that is what happened. Perhaps the Minister will have an answer.

Stephen McCabe: The point is that informal exclusions are not notified or recorded, so the issue is virtually impenetrable. That should be addressed. As I said, to
	be fair to the Government, they have funded a grant for exclusion advisers who we all hope will help to make progress.
	I was talking about SENCOs. At present, the Department for Education does not know how many SENCOs there are across the country, or how many teachers have particular additional skills designed to support autistic children. It might be helpful if we carried out some kind of audit so that we could at least begin to estimate the level of need and the gaps in existing provision.
	In theory, a SENCO is involved in the school’s use of the pupil premium for SEN children, although there appear to be no clear guidelines on the extent of that involvement or on how a school secures additional funding from a local authority on the basis of a child’s extensive needs or of having a particularly large number of children with special needs. In fact, it is often suggested that some mainstream schools seek to deter the parents of special needs children, and autistic children in particular, because they struggle to secure additional funding and are likely to be penalised by Ofsted for a decline in results as a consequence of their special needs children, rather than acknowledged for their efforts in supporting them. I am not defending any school’s attempt to exclude or reject children, but we have to acknowledge that how the system is currently loaded does not make things easy for a great number of schools.
	When we were dealing with the code of practice, the Minister spoke about how he saw the local offer as a powerful means of highlighting how well a local authority was doing in catering for children with special needs. I do not want to talk about what Lancashire or any other local authority has or has not done, as, frankly, I do not have the detail to hand. However, I acknowledge that the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mark Hendrick) has provided us with a broader picture of the situation in Lancashire.

Julie Hilling: Does my hon. Friend agree that one difficulty we face is the shortage of educational psychologists, making it hard to get timely appointments to diagnose young people and that, sadly, the cuts have made the situation even more difficult?

Stephen McCabe: The real issue is equity of access. People seem to have access to educational psychologists in some parts of the country, whereas there are phenomenal waiting periods in others. Some services claim that they are so overstretched as to be at breaking-point. That is my analysis of what is happening.
	To return to the local offer, my view is that it could provide one opportunity for local authorities and specialist providers to co-operate so that every staff member in every mainstream school has access to the support, information, guidance and counselling they might require to help them maintain an autistic child at school. I recently had the opportunity to visit the Treehouse school at the Pears National Centre for Autism Education in London. That provides an example of what can be done to help educate people with autism and to support other schools in the immediate vicinity. It is, of course, a labour-intensive effort, but surely the very term “special needs” implies something more than just the average in mainstream. We have to accept that this will always be a
	resource issue. Irrespective of the amount of money available, there will always be competition for such resources.
	I want to acknowledge that it is not just school-age provision with which we need to concern ourselves, especially when the new Act places obligations to assist people from the age of nought to 25. There is a dearth of decent facilities for children after the age of 16. Let me mention one new college I visited: the Lindridge Trinity specialist college in Sutton Coldfield, which was set up by parents who recognised that there was no provision in their area for their autistic children beyond the age of 16. Even if parents succeed in finding the school that best suits their child’s needs, getting them the education that best addresses the problem and puts them on the best path for the future, they run the risk that once their children reach 16, they simply fall off the cliff, with nothing available for them. As well as trying to address the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Burnley, we need to think further ahead in terms of what the Act requires, particularly in respect of the provision to carry people through to the age of 25.
	I congratulate once again the hon. Member for Burnley and other Members who have contributed to the debate. It seems to me that autistic children deserve a full educational opportunity. With the right structure, care and support, they are capable of so much more; it is up to us in this place to make sure that they do not miss out.

Edward Timpson: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle), as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) for tabling the debate in order to champion the needs of autistic children. I think we would all agree that this is an extremely important issue that affects parents not just in Lancashire, but in Cheshire, which is my area, and right across the country.
	I was reminded by the new Solicitor-General, who was present at the beginning of the debate and who has probably done more than any other Member to support the cause of autism on the basis of both his personal experience and the work that he is doing in South Swindon, that this is our third debate on the subject in the last 18 months or so, which is a rather better return than we had over the previous 10 years. I think that that emphasises how important it is for Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley, when local cases are brought to them, to take the opportunity to raise them on the platform here in Parliament, so that we can debate the issues more widely.
	My hon. Friend mentioned a number of cases, including those of Jack, Honey and Chloe. I have read about their experiences, and was able to discuss them with my hon. Friend last week. He also spoke about the consequences for children of missing out on education, whatever the reason may be. There is no doubt that the parents in such cases feel very badly let down. It is not for me to answer for Lancashire county council, however; the hon. Member for Preston (Mark Hendrick) has given it an opportunity to answer for itself.
	Parents have said that they have shared their stories so that other families can find an easier pathway towards better support in the future. We too should learn from their experiences. There are numerous examples which show why it is so necessary for us to change the current special educational needs system. Too many parents find themselves, as one mother has put it, in “an unending battle” with a system that is supposed to help them. Too many find that their children's special educational needs are picked up late, too many have to fight to get different services to work together—services that focus too much on the SEN label rather than on meeting children’s needs and supporting their life outcomes—and too many find that young people lose the protections and rights that they have had at school when they move on to further education.
	Although it is right to acknowledge that there is excellent practice and provision out there, it is little wonder that young people with SEN often have such poor prospects, lagging behind their peers at school and college, and being more likely to be out of education, training and employment at the age of 18. I am sure we all agree that that is not acceptable. It is a terrible waste of untapped potential, and of lives that are peppered with missed opportunities. The challenge, issued again today by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley, is for us—the Government and local authorities, as well as other agencies that are involved with families—to do much better by these children and young people. The Government have recognised that need, and we have been prepared to take on the challenge of truly reforming the SEN system to give all children and young people who are touched by it the best possible chance to lead successful, happy and fulfilled lives.
	As the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) reminded us earlier, the Children and Families Act 2014 is the most important legislation on special educational needs in 30 years. The reforms that it makes will begin to be introduced in September this year. It will create a clearer, more joined-up approach that will focus unashamedly on outcomes, and will improve the support that is provided during the transition to adulthood. Crucially, it will do much more to involve children, young people and their families through a more integrated, streamlined assessment process, and through a new “birth to 25” education, health and care plan that sets out, in one place, all the support that children will receive across the various services.

Bob Stewart: I presume that the Minister also wants early diagnosis to be part of that plan. The earlier we can make an assessment of young people with autism, the more they will be able to enjoy their lives subsequently.

Edward Timpson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that. The code of practice, which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) noted we debated in Committee this morning, has running through it that very premise: in order to ensure we get the support in place at the right time, early identification is key. Bringing health, social care and education services much more closely together will mean better sharing of information about the challenges that children present and understanding what underlying causes prevent them from being able to access education and to learn.

Steve Rotheram: The 2014 Act does not kick in until later this year. Given that this debate has been widely welcomed outside this place, will the Minister commit to a future debate, so that we not only keep this in the public consciousness, but see the effects of the legislation once it starts to have an impact?

Edward Timpson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for remaining stoic in his efforts to bring this issue to the fore, both in Parliament and in his constituency. It is important that we do not decide that the job has been done, and show no more interest in the consequences, just because an Act of Parliament has been passed. Things work the other way round: in some ways the easy bit has been achieved and the hardest bit is the implementation. That is why we are ensuring, in the run-up to September and beyond, that we have a clear understanding of how it feels for parents and families as the changes start to kick in. I would welcome any opportunity, be it Adjournment debates or other means by which hon. Members can bring these issues to the House, to continue taking a constructive approach to the legislation and the subsequent attempts to put it into place on the ground. We must be mindful that we are asking for a culture change to happen and take hold in many parts of our communities and our countries. The more Members of Parliament and other leaders in our communities show a direct, vocal and public interest in the life chances of children and young people with SEN, the greater prospect we have of getting the culture change we all want to see.

Bob Stewart: May I, too, support exactly what Walton’s voice in Westminster, the honourable scouser, has said: we ought to have more debates on this subject and watch the legislation going through?

Edward Timpson: As I said a few moments ago, this is the third or fourth debate we have had on autism, and we have had many more debates on SEN over the past two years. That can only be a good thing, and it has ratcheted up the interest and understanding of not only hon. Members, but many outside this place, who are now more aware of the importance of bringing forward these changes. They include: a new “birth to age 25” education, health and care plan; the local offer, which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak mentioned, outlining what support is available to children with SEN and their families in their area; and the joint commissioning of services by councils and local health bodies.
	It is also important to say that the Act protects and extends rights that exist in the current legislation and maintains duties. Schools will continue to have a duty to do their best to make provision to meet children’s SEN, and the Act extends that duty to colleges, too. Councils will, where necessary, continue to have a duty to assess children’s SEN and arrange suitable provision. Again, that duty is being extended to young people up to the age of 25, which is a significant step forward.
	The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak asked about the number and role of SENCOs in schools. Every maintained nursery, primary and secondary school is required to have at least one SENCO, who has received the necessary training, including on the main types of need, of which autism is one. The hon. Member
	for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) asked about educational psychologists, and I hope she was trying to elicit an answer that gives us a full picture of the current position. What I can tell her is that there has been significant investment in the training of educational psychologists. On average, more than £5 million a year has been invested since 2010. This is the first central support to supplement local authority voluntary subscription schemes, and this year we are increasing supported places from 120 a year to 132. I met the union that represents educational psychologists just this week to talk about how we can move forward in years to come.
	The 2014 Act will benefit all children and young people with special educational needs and their families. Importantly for this debate, that includes those with conditions such as autism, which often require specialist support across a number of agencies. I wish now to talk about some of the ways in which the new law will provide for that. Councils will have to integrate education provision with health and social care provision where that will promote the well-being of children and improve the quality of special educational provision.
	Health provision, such as speech and language therapy—such therapy is often a necessary requirement for those with autism, and was needed in some of the cases in Burnley—can be extremely important in addressing the communication difficulties that are one of the core features of autism. The joint commissioning duty between councils and health bodies will help ensure that services are available to meet the needs of children and young people in the area. Too often it is reported that parents receive a diagnosis of autism for their children and then are given no information about how they can access support. The purpose of the local offer is to provide information about the support available for disabled children and those with SEN across education, health and social care.
	The local offer will be not just a directory of services, but will be drawn up following consultation with children, young people and parents. If autistic children and young people and their parents feel that there is not sufficient provision for them in the area, they will be able to use the local offer to challenge the local authority to improve that provision.
	We all know how important early intervention can be for children with autism. By making the new system “nought to 25”, we have strengthened the rights of parents of children aged nought to two to have provision made to meet their child’s needs. Many children with autism also stand to gain from a stronger push for early identification of SEN through initiatives such as the two to two-and-a-half-year health visitor review. We are committed to creating an integrated review from 2015, combining the health visitor review and the two-year-old early years foundation progress review.
	Currently about 70% of children whose primary special educational need is autism have an SEN statement as against those who are supported by schools at School Action Plus. That is a higher percentage than most other types of SEN. We expect those children who currently have statements to be transferred on to the new education, health and care plans so they will benefit from the more co-ordinated approach that the plans bring and the new duty on health bodies to arrange the health provision set out in a plan.
	With growing awareness of autism, many parents of autistic children quite rightly want specialist provision. Through the Children and Families Act 2014, we are strengthening the right of parents of children with EHC plans to have provision made at independent specialist schools. At present, where the parents of children with SEN statements request a council-maintained mainstream or special school, the local authority is under a conditional duty to name that school and, if it does, the school is under a duty to admit the child. But that does not apply when parents request other types of schools.
	From this September—to emphasise the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) made—when the parents of children with EHC plans request an academy, a non-maintained special school or an approved independent special school, the council will be under the same conditional duty to name that school as if the parent had asked for a local authority maintained school.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak rightly raised the issue of autistic children being informally and therefore illegally excluded from school. The Government’s view is clear: no child should be unlawfully excluded. Ofsted and the Department will take seriously evidence that a school has acted unlawfully in excluding a pupil. The new statutory guidance on exclusion, which took effect in September 2012, makes it clear that informal exclusion, such as sending children home to cool off, is unlawful. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak reminded us, we are funding the National Autistic Society to pay for exclusion advisers to provide advice to parents and professionals, but we want improvements and will continue to ensure that they happen.
	Like other parents, parents of children with autism are keen to have greater control over the provision that is made for their children. Through the Children and Families Act 2014, the parents of children with EHC plans will have the opportunity to have a personal budget through which they can decide on how some of the provision set out in the plan is delivered. For example, parents could use their personal budget to decide which therapist delivers speech and language therapy to their child, rather than having to accept the therapist arranged for them. The increased roles for children, young people and parents and the 2014 Act’s promotion of greater co-operation in decision making will take much of the adversarial nature out of the current system.
	However, it would be unrealistic to suggest that the new system will mean that no parents or young people will be unhappy about the provision that will be made in future. Currently, the largest number of appeals registered at the special educational needs and disability tribunal are in relation to children with autism, as compared with other types of need, which gives an indication of the difficulties that parents of children with autism have with the current system. I am sure that some parents of autistic children with EHC plans and young autistic people with plans will continue to disagree with the provision that is set out within. We have preserved the right of parents to appeal to the tribunal to have their appeals decided by an independent body, and we have extended that right to young people, too.
	Going to tribunal can be stressful for some parents and, if they choose to be legally represented, expensive, which is why, under the new regime, where parents and young people are thinking of appealing to the tribunal, we have given them the option of going to mediation with the council to try and get the disagreements sorted out more quickly in a non-judicial setting. If they fail to get disagreements about the special educational needs provision sorted, they can appeal to the tribunal.
	Lastly, young people with autism can find change difficult, particularly the transition to adulthood. The 2014 Act brings together the legislation for school children aged nought to 19 with the legislation on young people with learning difficulties or disabilities in post-16 further education provision up to the age of 25, which means that young people with autism who need more time to complete their education and make that transition will have the opportunity to carry on in education until they are ready to leave.
	One often-quoted statistic is that only 15% of adults with autism are in full-time employment, which is depressing, particularly given that, matched to the right job, many people with autism, with their eye for detail and the regularity and consistency of their work, are an absolute godsend for employers. The new SEN system will put greater emphasis on the long-term outcomes for young people, including getting a job. Much greater emphasis will be placed on preparing young people for employment and using routes such as apprenticeships, traineeships and supported internships to help them gain employment.
	As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak also said, in addition to our debate here, we have also been debating the new nought to 25 SEN and disability code of practice, which will give statutory guidance on the new SEN and disability system. The draft code has been developed after extensive consultation with many people, including the voluntary sector. For example, I met representatives from the National Autistic Society and we listened to its concerns that the description of the four broad areas of SEN in the code did not fully reflect the range and complexity of the difficulties that autistic children and young people can face. The NAS was also concerned that the first consultation draft of the code did not mention duties under the Autism Act 2009 and associated statutory guidance, so we agreed wording with the NAS that makes clear that children and young people with autism can have difficulties across all four areas of special educational needs: communication, cognition, emotional and mental health, and sensory difficulties. The code now makes it clear that, under statutory guidance accompanying the autism strategy, SENCOs should inform young people of their right to a community care assessment and their parents of a right to a carer’s assessment.
	As hon. Members will be aware, just passing the legislation to provide for the new system is only half the battle. Successful implementation will depend on people around the country embracing the spirit of the new system. The best areas are already working in a way that we want to spread across the country.
	I have listed a number of councils and have been encouraged by the progress that is being made in the run-up to the commencement date on 1 September. The Department has been conducting readiness surveys with all local authorities and the most recent survey shows
	that 95% of councils have told us that they are on track for September and can manage the changes. I have made it my business to follow up on the progress of authorities that are further behind the curve personally and I hope that that is a sign of how important the Government consider these reforms to be and our determination to improve things on the ground for families.
	We know that implementing the changes we want to see will come at a cost. I recently announced an extra £45.2 million of funding in 2014-15 and indicative funding of £31.7 million in 2015-16 to help councils with implementation. That is on top of the £70 million SEN reform grant that councils can use to work with health and others to deliver the changes. We are also giving £30 million of new money between April of this year and March 2016 to recruit and train independent supporters across the whole country to help families navigate the new system.
	This debate has been another excellent opportunity to raise in this House not only the importance of the special educational needs reforms that the Government have introduced but how they will affect many people up and down the country who have a child or young person with autism. I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. Autism is a complex condition, and it requires people to work together to ensure that the needs of individuals and autistic children and young people as a whole are met. I hope that what I have said today reassures hon. Members that the Children and Families Act and the reforms that we are introducing will make co-operative working between children and young people, parents, professionals and agencies a reality.
	As ever, my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley has done the House a service by raising this important issue and I hope that it has given him some sense that work is under way to address many of the points he has raised. Of course, I would be the first to say that there is still a lot of work to do.

Gordon Birtwistle: I thank those on the two Front Benches for their contributions to the debate. I also want to express some concern about the contribution made by the hon. Member for Preston (Mark Hendrick). In my speech, I never mentioned the surnames of any of the children and I did not name any of the schools that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. A briefing containing private family issues has been given by the county council to the hon. Gentleman, and I find that very distressing and concerning.

Mark Hendrick: rose—

Gordon Birtwistle: No, I will not give way. I believe that the parents represented in this place today will express some concern about what is going on with the staff of Lancashire county council. I certainly have a right to say that because, as I said—

Mark Hendrick: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Minister has just mentioned the fact that this is an adversarial system. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman who has raised the a debate today not to mention the fact that his daughter-in-law is the speech therapist in one of the cases that he has dealt with?

Lindsay Hoyle: That is not a matter for the Chair. I am sure that we want to get to the end of the debate.

Gordon Birtwistle: My daughter-in-law is a professional speech therapist and is doing a great job for these people. What concerns me is that the staff at the county council briefed the hon. Member for Preston before hearing anything I had to say, giving the names of the children mentioned in the debate when I did not do that for a certain reason, and giving the names of the schools involved when I did not do that. I only mentioned Rossendale school. I am very disappointed by that and I believe that the parents listening to the debate will be somewhat concerned that the county council is briefing as it is.
	In conclusion, I thank the Minister for his comments. I thank the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), for his comments and I hope that what has been suggested works for the children of today and certainly for the children of tomorrow. This disease will not end; it will continue. I believe that we should support the young children who suffer from this appalling condition.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House has considered the provision of education for children with autism.

ROYAL ASSENT

Lindsay Hoyle: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
	Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) Act 2014
	Finance Act 2014
	Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014.

VINCE MORGAN

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Gavin Barwell.)

Alan Johnson: Vincent Morgan died on the night of 28 December 2012. He was found hanging in his prison cell in A wing of Northallerton prison. He had also swallowed a plastic knife that was found in his oesophagus. Vincent Morgan had committed suicide at 29 years of age.
	There has since been an investigation by North Yorkshire police, a report by the prisons and probation ombudsman, a verdict of death by misadventure, and a coroner’s report from which flowed a couple of regulation 28 letters to the Department of Health and the Ministry of Justice. There has been a great deal of activity with practically no light thrown on the central issue, which is why we deal so badly with young people who have mental health problems. How little respect we pay to the wishes of parents in the way we treat these young people in our criminal justice system.
	Vincent Morgan was involved in a serious road accident when he was four years old. It was suspected then and is obvious now that this damaged his brain in a way that would become more pronounced as he grew older. However, it was not until 2005 that he was finally diagnosed with chronic long-term psychotic illness—schizophrenia with daily auditory hallucinations—and was prescribed drugs to deal with his conditions. In April 2012 Vince went out with his parents to a local pub and when they returned home he assaulted his father. The community psychiatric nurse allocated to Vince said that his behaviour that night was a response to a new drug he had just been prescribed. The police were called. They advised Vincent’s parents to press charges against their son as the only way to get the medical help he needed. Mr and Mrs Morgan reluctantly signed statements and the case went to court.
	The mental health care co-ordinator—the mental health professional—advised against a prison sentence and said that a hospital order would be more appropriate. However, a so-called independent expert, with no knowledge of Vince Morgan and without even examining him or meeting him, said that his mental health condition could be managed in prison. What I can only describe as a vicious sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment was handed down and Vincent Morgan found himself separated from his loving parents for almost the first time in his young life and placed in a prison cell.
	Mr and Mrs Morgan came to see me in the summer of 2012 and together we tried to get Vince released on a home detention order. His parents had redecorated his room. Having cared for their son in the eight years since his condition was diagnosed, they wanted him home for Christmas. This was refused, but the date for release was set for 28 January 2013, only a few weeks into the new year. After liaising with various parts of the NHS, Vince Morgan was receiving the mental health treatment he needed in Hull prison and his parents continued to prepare for his release.
	Then two things happened. Without any consultation the probation service wrote to this vulnerable young man in his prison cell. Vince, who had a mental age much younger than his years—some have said he had a
	mental age of eight, some have said 10—and was known to be passive and acquiescent to any request, was told in that letter that upon his release he would not be going home, but to a bail hostel. Vince told his parents about this in a letter from prison dated 5 November. This is important because the Minister will probably have been briefed that this is not the case, but I can tell him quite categorically that the probation service has got this totally wrong.
	Incidentally, I wrote to Humberside probation trust on 22 November 2013, just after the coroner’s report, which is the only time I could get seriously involved in these issues. I wrote to the Secretaries of State and all the local agencies, and they all responded within weeks. Humberside probation trust replied to my letter of 22 November 2013 on 27 March 2014—over four months later. In a case such as this, with a young man killed in his cell, and when we are trying to get to the bottom of lessons to be learnt and reasons it happened, one might have thought that the probation trust would take it more seriously.
	The probation trust stated in its letter, “No, that’s quite wrong. Vince’s parents were informed of the intention to release him to a bail hostel when he finished his sentence.” It should be borne in mind that I had been campaigning on their behalf to get him released early, but now he was being told that he would not be able to go home, even at the end of his sentence. In a further letter to me, the trust’s chief executive stated:
	“Vincent Morgan’s parents were involved in a telephone discussion as early as 6th November 2012 about the possibility of placing him in an Approved Premises. This intention was confirmed at a MAPPA meeting on 21 November 2012 and communicated to Vincent Morgan at the meeting in the prison on 7th December 2012.”
	That is entirely wrong. I have the letter from the prison trust given to Vince Morgan in his prison cell, and it is dated 24 October 2012.
	With regard to 6 November, I have the postmarked letter that Vince Morgan received—dated 5 November—and that was sent to his parents’ home in Hull to inform them that he had just received a letter stating that he would be going into a bail hostel. The reason they spoke to his parents on 6 November is that the parents had rung the probation trust to ask, “What the hell’s going on? Our son has just told us that he won’t be coming home at the end of his sentence.” That was entirely wrong. I was also told that the parents had been informed in the telephone call, but that was as a result of them ringing the probation service. That was a real failing on the part of the probation service.
	The second thing that happened was that Mr and Mrs Morgan received a phone call from Vince to tell them that he had been moved to Northallerton prison. Nobody had informed them. In a statement to the coroner, the offender supervisor at Northallerton, Phil Reeve, said that nobody knew why Vince had been transferred and that
	“we wanted to get him back to Hull because we knew his parents were his main visitors and that they might find the travelling to Northallerton difficult.”
	Perhaps I should mention at this point that Sharon Morgan, as well as being Vince’s mum, was his registered carer. They did indeed find the travelling difficult, but they were at least pleased to discover that Vince was sharing a cell on C wing with a prisoner who became a mentor to him and who was, together with other prisoners, watching out for his welfare.
	It was at Northallerton on 7 December that Vince was told again that he would have to go to a bail hostel, rather than home, when his sentence ended. As was the case with the original sentence, the mental health expert, in the shape of Vince’s care co-ordinator, expressed the view that release to an approved hostel would cause him to reoffend and that, in her view, the preferred option was for him to be returned home.
	The ombudsman asked the senior officer in charge of the residential unit at Northallerton whether she knew that Vince had been told that he would not be going home to his mother and father when he finished his sentence. She replied that she did not know. She told the ombudsman that she definitely should have known
	“because I know right now that if I’d known that, I wouldn’t have made the decision that I did.”
	What decision was she referring to? That is the final act in this tragedy. On Boxing day 2012, Vince Morgan was removed from C wing, from the mentor who had watched over him, and, once again without any contact with his parents, was transferred to what was, in effect, solitary confinement in A block, where he hanged himself two days later.
	As was related again and again in the ombudsman’s report and to the coroner, prison officers wondered what Vince Morgan was doing in prison. Health service professionals disagreed with the decision to place Vince in a bail hostel. The offender supervisor at Northallerton said in a report to the coroner:
	“Another thing that was discussed in the meeting was the accident that Vince had when he was a child and this might be a cause of his learning difficulties. I couldn’t understand why that link hadn’t been made earlier and why the report hadn’t been completed for court. However I was told that it was done for court but none of it came to the judge. My question, based on my knowledge from working in courts was, why wasn’t a hospital order made against Vince rather than a prison sentence?”
	It was not just a prison sentence but an 18-month prison sentence. I echo that: why indeed? Why were not Mr and Mrs Morgan kept fully informed and involved in all the decisions that affected their son? Where is the mysterious report that never came before the judge?
	Northallerton prison no longer exists. That is why the ombudsman made no recommendations—there is no prison to make recommendations about. The Humberside probation trust folded in May. The chief executive is now retired somewhere.
	The case of Vince Morgan is a tragic example of the appalling way mental health is treated as a poor relation not just of the NHS, as many say, but of every other public agency. The mental health professionals sit round a table with the probation service and others, and their views are discarded: they are overruled. I want to meet the Minister to discuss this case further. I hope the Government use the case of Vince Morgan as the clearest example of how to get things wrong so that we can start to get things right.
	Finally, I want to read an extract from a letter that Trevor Morgan, Vincent’s father, wrote to all the various agencies on 27 December, the day before his son died. He had spent the whole of Christmas composing this letter. He says:
	“My son is a gentle giant and is well liked by everyone who knows him. Before he became ill…he had a job as a van drivers assistant, which he loved. Since his illness started 8 years ago, my wife, Sharon, and I have looked after him ourselves. Vince very
	rarely leaves the house, he is a very quiet man and keeps himself to himself. What happened on that night”—
	the night he attacked his father—
	“was very out of character for him. But, if Vince had been having the right medication at the time, it would never have happened in the first place.”
	He ends by saying:
	“Please forgive me if you think I sound bitter, my wife and I have never lived for so long without our son, who we love and care for so much. Please, let our son come home on the 29th January 2013. Don’t put him in a hostel, which will be rife with drugs and where Vince would be at risk from others. Once again”,
	he says in closing,
	“I beg you to let Vince come home to us, the people who love and will look after him.”
	If that simple request had been granted, Vincent Morgan would be alive today, and he would be in the care of his devoted parents who remain completely devastated by his death.

Andrew Selous: Let me begin by thanking the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) for securing this debate, which raises some very important issues. First, I would like to offer my profound condolences to Mr Morgan’s parents, Sharon and Trevor, and his whole family.
	Every death in prison custody is a tragedy for that individual and their family and friends. Let me assure the House of how seriously the Government take such deaths, which are all independently investigated by the prisons and probation ombudsman and a coroner’s inquest, as the right hon. Gentleman said.
	I would like to offer a few comments on Mr Morgan before turning to some of the wider issues highlighted by this very sad set of events. Mr Morgan was serving concurrent sentences of 18 months for actual bodily harm and four months for battery—offences that he had committed against his parents. Initially remanded to Her Majesty’s Prison Hull in April 2012, he served several months there after his conviction before transferring to HMP Northallerton in November 2012 as a standard progressive move. HMP Northallerton was a specialist resettlement prison that has now closed.

Alan Johnson: That, of course, raises a question for the parents. Vince was 28 coming up to 29, so he was an adult, but everyone knew that his severe, chronic mental health problems meant that, in effect, he was acting like a child. Why would the prison service not consult his parents—his mother being his registered carer—about the need to transfer him from one prison to another? How could the transfer of such a vulnerable prisoner go ahead without the parents being consulted?

Andrew Selous: The right hon. Gentleman raises a proper issue about the way in which the families and carers of people with mental health issues are treated generally in our society. Very similar issues have been raised in my constituency. If he will allow me, I will go back, make further inquiries at the Ministry of Justice about that specific point and write to him following this debate. I absolutely understand the very important issue that he properly raises.
	Mr Morgan’s conditional release date was 29 January 2013, and planning for his release was under way. However, on 28 December 2012, Mr Morgan was, tragically, found hanging in his cell. The emergency response was prompt, but Mr Morgan was pronounced dead.
	Mr Morgan suffered from schizophrenia, and his treatment for this condition continued during his time in custody. As with all prisoners, he was assessed on entry to custody, where he was referred for assessment by the prison mental health in-reach team, and considered for any risk of self-harm or suicide. Staff kept an eye on his behaviour and potential vulnerability to bullying. An assessment for learning disabilities was requested. At the time of his death, Mr Morgan had recently moved wings and a few weeks previously had been informed that he would be required to live in an approved premises, rather than return to his parents house, when he left prison, though that aspect of his release planning continued to be kept under consideration by Humberside probation trust and the multi-agency public protection panel that considered his case.
	The coroner’s inquest into Mr Morgan’s death concluded in November 2013. The cause of death was hanging and the jury’s conclusion of death by misadventure noted that there was a failure in the system of transfer of information from health care staff to discipline staff, and that, consequently, problems regarding Mr Morgan’s behaviour were treated as a discipline issue rather than medical.
	The coroner made two recommendations to the Secretary of State for Justice. The first was on the involvement of health providers where prisoners requiring in-reach mental health support are to be transferred between prisons. There is a “clinical hold” system in place, which can be used where there are concerns about the suitability of health care provision in the receiving prison. The second was on the information flow from and to prison officers within HMP Northallerton. As has been said, HMP Northallerton has since closed, but a review was undertaken at HMP Hull.
	The prisons and probation ombudsman completed his report on Mr Morgan’s death in May 2014. It identified some deficiencies in communications between staff at Northallerton about Mr Morgan’s management, but concluded that it would have been very difficult to foresee Mr Morgan’s action and prevent his death. No recommendations were made.
	I reiterate my profound condolences to Mr Morgan’s family. As I have already said, every death in custody is a tragedy for that individual and their family and friends. Safety, decency and security will always remain the priority for the National Offender Management Service. However, every year a number of people die in prison—some through natural causes and some self-inflicted. In 2013, 215 people died in prison custody. Of those, 123 were as a result of natural causes and 74 were self-inflicted.
	As the House may be aware, the number and rate of self-inflicted deaths in prisons in England and Wales increased in 2013 and the Government are committed to understanding the reasons for that rise and are seeking to address it. We have put additional resources into safer custody work across prison establishments; this issue affects the whole estate of public and private prisons. The rise comes after a period of some years
	during which the rate of self-inflicted deaths has been relatively stable, at its lowest level in the last 25 years. In recent years, better treatment of prisoners with drug-use problems and the use of safer cells, with reduced ligature points, have contributed to the reduction in the number of self-inflicted deaths.
	There has been recent comment about whether population pressures, organisational changes in prisons and reductions in the number of prison officers have contributed to the rise. However, the picture is not so straightforward, and there is no clear correlation between the existence of such pressures and prisons where self-inflicted deaths have occurred. Known factors appear in a number of deaths. For example, the early days of custody are known to be a period of higher risk. Self-inflicted deaths in custody occur most often in males aged 30 to 39, and most occur by hanging. However, overlaying these known factors are reasons for each self-inflicted death, which are as individual as the person involved. It is therefore essential to support prisoners as individuals—many of them have complex needs, as the right hon. Gentleman outlined in this case—by identifying whether they have particular risk factors, and if so, responding appropriately.
	Prisons use the ACCT—assessment, care in custody and teamwork—system to keep prisoners safe. Individual ACCT plans should be opened and closed in line with the assessment of an individual’s risk of self-harm or suicide, and their needs. It is a dynamic process.

Alan Johnson: The Minister is a decent man, and I appreciate that he has come to the Chamber with a brief. It was kind of him to offer to write me a letter, but there is no need for that if he will give me a meeting. We need to discuss these matters in more detail. I have read all that stuff about wraparound care and all such really good stuff. We said the same thing in government, so this is not a party political point. Vince Morgan is a perfect example of how all of that means nothing when it comes to a vulnerable young man, whose parents were concerned but were ignored, and specifically when it comes to the decision not to let him go home at the end of his sentence.
	I am sorry that this is a long intervention, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Minister says that Vince Morgan was told of that decision a few weeks before, but I now have absolute proof—from a letter sent to this mentally ill young man back in October—that he was told in his prison cell. All that puts a new complexion on the case, and I would be very grateful if the Minister met me to discuss it.

Andrew Selous: Of course I will meet the right hon. Gentleman. If he contacts my office after this debate, I will make arrangements for us to meet as soon as possible.
	I want to respond to a point that the right hon. Gentleman made about Vince’s move to A wing. I think that the right hon. Gentleman referred to it as solitary confinement. Vince was moved to a single cell, but not to solitary confinement. He was deliberately placed near the wing office, and the move was for his own well-being. Prisoners on C wing had complained about Vince, so there were genuine concerns for his safety. It is important to put that on the record.
	It is through such individual assessment that staff can be alive to the often overlapping and interconnected factors that may contribute to an individual’s distress, and which can on rare occasions lead to suicide. Those factors may include mental health needs, addressing any disabilities or disadvantages, or simply being sensitive to potential trigger or pressure points that they may experience during their time in custody.
	As is well known, the prison population is not representative of the general population in a number of ways. The prevalence rates for personality disorder, psychosis, attention disorders, post-traumatic stress disorder and self-harm are notably higher than in the general population, as are problems with substance misuse and alcohol. Almost 50% of adult prisoners suffer from anxiety and/or depression, compared with 15% of the general population. Experts estimate that prisoners with a learning disability or difficulties may represent as much as 30% of the prison population.
	Liaison and diversion services are a vital way in which the Government seek to ensure that when someone first comes into contact with the youth or adult criminal justice system on suspicion of having committed a crime, their health needs are identified, assessed and provided for by appropriate treatment services, and that the police and courts are enabled to make informed decisions about charging and sentencing.
	We are investing £25 million in a trial scheme that will place mental health professionals in police stations and courts, and improve identification, assessment and referral services, so that access to health care and social care interventions are improved. That is not about individuals avoiding the appropriate sanction from the criminal justice system, but about tackling some of the underlying issues that can cause people to offend.
	For some prisoners with severe mental illness, the most appropriate treatment setting will be a secure hospital. About 900 transfers are made from prisons to secure hospitals each year. However, not all serious mental illness needs to be treated in a secure hospital, and most serious mental illnesses are treatable within prison under the care of a consultant psychiatrist. Prisoners are considered for transfer to secure units only when a prison cannot provide appropriate treatment in the judgment of a responsible clinician. In such circumstances, good liaison between health care teams and other prison staff is essential to ensure that events and decisions that could affect a prisoner’s risk of self-harm or suicide are considered and are known by others.
	The whole-person approach to individual case management continues into release planning. The most serious offenders are subject to multi-agency public protection arrangements, which ensure that relevant statutory partners and interested organisations are properly involved in pre-release planning.
	I would like to say a few words about families, about which the right hon. Gentleman rightly spoke. We know the importance of family contact and support to prisoners. Phone calls and visits with family and friends make a huge contribution to prisoners’ well-being. Close family members who are on low incomes can apply for assistance towards visits. The support of families and friends is an important component in helping someone to avoid re-offending when they are released from prison. Wherever possible, families are involved in the decision-making process when a prisoner’s accommodation post-release is being considered by the MAPPA panel.
	I know that Members will share my concern about every death that happens in prison custody. The prisons and probation ombudsman, to whom I spoke this afternoon, has conducted a lessons learned review of deaths in custody and will publish his report next month. I look forward to seeing the report and to reviewing the recommendations fully so that we learn every possible lesson from what he has to say.
	We must remember that prison staff save lives, sometimes through swift intervention when a vulnerable prisoner is literally on the verge of taking his own life and sometimes—this is less easy to know about but is no less real—through the careful and caring management of some of the most vulnerable individuals in society, who have been placed in custody because of the harm they have caused to others in society. That, of course, is no consolation to the family of Mr Morgan, whose death no one was able to prevent.
	I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for securing this debate, which has allowed us to consider the complexities of such cases. I may be new in post, but I share his determination to learn the lessons of this tragic incident and similar incidents of this nature so that we can reduce the number of self-inflicted deaths in custody as much as possible.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.